Monday, November 30, 2009
Here follows a comment on the article I came across on my Facebook profile page. I think it typifies the reaction of many goodhearted people who are reluctant to look past the propaganda about her personal views and history to think clearly about Sarah Palin's official actions and public statements on the issue of justice, law and public policy involved in the fight to secure the unalienable right to life of our posterity.
Anthony Davar Finding enemies in our prolife camp and splitting among strong prolife leaders will only cost us the most important fact: the life of another child. How many abortions were there in United States prior to 1973 vs after? One abortion is too many obviously. Sarah Palin is obviously a strong prolife leader, and with her own life example, has shown without a doubt, where she stands for life! However, as a matter of practical steps to victory, she is smart to go for one step at a time.If the country was on its knees repenting of the evil of abortion, she would be there with us praying for God to turn our hearts to the defense of our children.
Alan Keyes Anthony Davar: On what grounds do you hold that Sarah Palin is "a strong pro-life leader"? I review both her statements and her actions, and find them in contradiction with the necessary moral logic without which the pro-life position is simply a matter of emotional feeling. Based on this review I conclude that she is not in fact espousing the pro-life public policy position. Without at all addressing the facts and moral reasoning I present, you assert that she is pro-life. Beyond emotional conviction, on what do you base your assertion?
It is obviously not right by law to impose our personal feelings on others, however strongly we feel. This is especially so when dealing with a decision that has deeply personal emotional and other consequences for the individual concerned. So if we reduce the pro-life cause to reliance on personal emotional conviction, we surrender the rational basis for the fight to achieve legal protection for the unalienable right to life of the unborn child.
Sarah Palin's statements and actions are rationally inconsistent with the moral logic of unalienable right which, if true, binds all levels of government and all US public officials to the goal of securing the unalienable rights with which God has endowed our humanity. If we accept her as a pro-life leader we abandon the rational moral basis for the pro-life position. I cannot do this without betraying the principles of liberty, and the will of the Creator God whose authority establishes them as the basis for human justice.
Your rhetoric simply fails to address the facts and reasoning I present. It amounts to saying that she is personally against abortion (about which I have no doubt). But many pro-"abortion rights" politicians say that. The issue before the nation is about law and justice, not personal conviction. Nothing Sarah Palin has said or done supports the view that she is pro-life as a matter of justice, law and public policy. So far as I can tell, she is just a pro-choice politician who turned a laudable personal choice into a seductive, but false pro-life public image. All the choices and statements she has made in her public capacity support this conclusion. If I'm wrong, show me the facts and statements that indicate something beyond the "I'm personally pro-life" position so common among the so-called "pro-choice" promoters of "abortion rights".
Unless Sarah Palin fundamentally alters the views she has enunciated and acted on up to now, I predict that she will disappoint the hope so many sincerely pro-life people are mistakenly investing in her supposed pro-life stand. I am sure I will pay a price for saying now what others will only realize when it may be too late. I was excoriated starting in 2004 for calling Obama a hard line Marxist bent on destroying America. That view is not at all so contemned today as it was when facts and reasoning first convinced me of its truth. Similarly on account of facts and reasoning I and others insist that Obama cease to withhold evidence bearing on whether or not he satisfies the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Office of President of the United States. For this we are vilified and ridiculed, though many of our fellow Americans now join in this demand.
My view of Sarah Palin's supposed pro-life stance, and the danger involved in following her leadership, is similarly based on facts and reasoning. I will hold to it until one or the other clearly compels me to do otherwise. Experience has taught me that even among those whose pro-life hearts espouse the self-evident truths that make us free, when it comes to politics the factual standard of truth often gives way to personal feelings and expedient calculation. Given the crisis we are in, I can only pray that at some point they will realize that this neglect of the requirements of truth is the very reason America's liberty has reached the crisis point. Before a people finds leaders willing to act in truth, they must become a people willing to submit their own judgments and decisions to its demands.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Actually, no; not in the sense of the political liberty the American people have up to now enjoyed. Our liberty is based on the idea of unalienable rights articulated to justify our nation's assertion of independence from Great Britain. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Unalienable rights give rise to opportunities for choice, but in a context that first takes account of the standard of justice from which the claim of right derives. Human life involves certain actions and inclinations that, as a rule, tend to support and preserve it, both for individuals and for the species as a whole. This rule is the result of determinations made by their Creator, whose will thus constitutes the standard for their actions. As they accept the gift of life and perform the actions necessary to sustain it, their respect for the Creator's rule sets the standard for their action. Right action preserves and perpetuates human life. Wrong action damages and destroys it. People are in the right when they act rightly. Should others, without cause or provocation, seek to interfere with their action, they have the right to resist and to defend themselves against that interference.
The concept of unalienable rights thus arises from respect for the rule of the Creator. People acting rightly (i.e., in conformity with the rule) act on the Creator's authority. They may use in defense of their actions whatever powers they possess in consequence of that authority. Their physical, mental and emotional capacities may all be brought to bear to enforce (that is continue with) their right action. These capacities include the ability to discern and choose among different courses of action that achieve the desired result. As they do so, they have a right connected with and arising from their respect for the Creator's rule.
In and of itself, therefore, choice is not a "right". Rather it is a consequence of the conformity to right. Yet the capacity for choice is part of human nature, which is to say the way human beings have been fashioned by the Creator. People have the capacity for choice. But they only have the right to do as they choose when they have used that capacity in accordance with the Creator's rule. Put simply, their choice does not involve a right when what they choose to do is fundamentally wrong.
Government exists because God made humanity with the capacity to do wrong, i.e., envisage and set our sights on a different course than the one that is, on the whole, compatible with the possibility of human existence. In light of this capacity, the purpose of government is to limit and/ or repulse the effective action of wrongdoers, thereby securing the rights (i.e., right courses of action) of those who respect the Creator's will.
This logic is the basis in principle for the pro-life rejection of the superficially potent argument that a woman may do as she chooses when it comes to taking the life of the child in her womb. Her freedom to choose does not extend to violating the Creator's demand of respect for the child's unalienable right to life. God's demand of justice limits individual choice. But it also limits how those entrusted with the powers of government may legitimately (i.e., lawfully) employ them. This is the substantive basis for the concept of limited government. The limitation does not arise from ideological whim, or from social or historical circumstances. It arises from the same determination of the Creator's will that sets the stars on fire and the courses in which planets revolve around them.
Just as the individual's choice is limited by the Creator's determination of what harmonizes with the possibility of human existence, so the use of the powers of government is limited to actions compatible with the aim of securing the unalienable rights of human nature (i.e., those connected with actions and inclinations compatible with the decisions of the Creator that make our existence possible.) No government (including the State governments of the United States) may, in law or action, justly depart from this aim by violating or tolerating the violation of the unalienable rights of anyone subject to its jurisdiction.
Sarah Palin appears to be pro-choice for State governments. (I invite readers to review the arguments I have made in this regard in Sarah Palin: Already Compromised? and Palin's Choice: an Afterword) Yet just as the principle of unalienable right places a limit on the individual choice of the mother it also limits the choice of the community of individuals (civil society) acting by means of the State governments. Except for the just demands of that principle, the intimate, personal consequences of the decision about pregnancy would favor giving moral priority to the mother's choice, not that of State legislators otherwise unaffected by its result. Herein lies the grave danger connected with identifying 'pro-choice for States' politicians as acceptable champions of the pro-life cause. They step away from the solid ground of principle provided by the Declaration of Independence reliance upon unalienable rights. By doing so, they set the stage for the ultimate defeat of the pro-life position. Sadly this also undermines the argument that the consent of the governed is the sine qua non of governmental legitimacy (lawfulness). For unless it respects requirements of right action, government based upon consent contradicts the Creator's rule, and so cuts the ground out from under the just demand it claims to represent.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
The answer should be easy. Since the Party's primaries are supposed to allow voters to decide the GOP candidates, Gingrich surely doesn't mean to suggest that conservatives should not run in the primaries. After all, at the primary stage there is not yet a party nominee to oppose, so they aren't being destructive. But there is a candidate preferred and backed by the GOP leaders. (In Kentucky, for example, that's Trey Grayson.) Does Gingrich mean to suggest that even at the primary stage, conservatives should simply accept whatever RINO the leadership pushes? I suspect that he does, though in the context of the race in NY's 23rd district, his words could be otherwise construed.
Of course, the outcome in NY's 23rd District doesn't support the notion that fielding conservative candidates is destructive. On the contrary, it reveals the truth. Support from GOP leaders like Gingrich gives crypto-leftists like Scozzafava (or for that matter, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney) the clout to thwart the election of good conservatives. What appeared in the three way race in New York is actually the ongoing reality of the situation within the GOP itself. The GOP base is conservative. A solid majority of voters in that base want candidates who oppose abortion, support the God-ordained natural family, favor limited government, free market economics and respect for the Constitution of the United States as written (not as fabricated by elitist judges.) But the GOP leadership favors blank slate mediocrities. They can then write them up as conservatives for the primaries, while secretly assuring that once nominated they will run and govern as 'moderates' (a term that refers to their dilution of conservatism, as I make clear in How GOP party bosses betray grass roots.) These anti-conservative leaders pretend that they favor 'moderates' because conservatives are unelectable. In fact, as we saw in NY's 23rd district, they favor moderates in order to make sure conservative candidates don't win elections. This is the goal and purpose of their "moderate" inclination.
This reality within the GOP is the reason I feel sorry for people who think that they can somehow reclaim it from within. I constantly get emails and other communications from sincere conservatives, deeply concerned to stop the slide into socialism, suggesting that Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin or even Michael Steele and Romney will somehow join forces with conservatives like me to restore the GOP to its principles. They haven't yet realized that the GOP leadership is now dedicated to the goal of making sure that real conservatives become obsolete. The greatest fear of the GOP leaders now is that the intense rejection of Obama's national socialism will somehow catch fire enough to lift up real conservatives to replace the phony, manipulated, sham that presently uses conservative voters to put crypto-leftists (wearing the Republican label) into power. Since Reagan left office, this has been the main purpose of the GOP party machinery, perfected in that regard by the shrewd maneuverings of people like Karl Rove.
The Politico article refers to the GOP's "center-right" coalition. This is quite simply deceitful. The GOP consists of a conservative majority being ruthlessly exploited and betrayed by a tiny, parasitical, crypto-leftist minority that relies on pro-abortion money to create a media megaphone that drowns out the voices that speak to and for the conservative heart of America. Sadly, Newt Gingrich now seems determined to speak for this minority, and its successful abuse of the decent conservatives who, but for the abuse, would join together to save the Constitution and our liberty. While people like me work to revive and restore the republic, they have apparently cast themselves as the undertakers of its demise, content to prepare the body for viewing by carefully preserving the outward appearance of life until the time comes to fulfill Khrushchev's boastful communist prediction, "We will bury you."
Friday, November 13, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
But Bill Owens "was quickly sworn into office on Friday, a day before the rare weekend vote in the House of Representatives. His support sealed his party's narrow victory on the health care legislation."
By what right does anyone declare and act on an election outcome before all the votes are counted? Whatever candidates do to declare or concede victory, elections are decided by what the people do with their votes, not what the candidates do with their speeches. Or at least that's the way its supposed to be when government of, by and for the people still functions.
Sad on this day after veterans day, to reflect on the fact that among the votes still uncounted when Owens was being sworn in are many cast by people who are right now risking their lives in service to their country. Yet we let ambitious political parties hijack the electoral process in a fashion that sends the clear signal- your votes don't matter.
By such carelessness does a free people discard the respect for their sovereignty that is the essence of liberty. I assume that if the vote turns out to favor Doug Hoffman, Owens will have to give up the seat he would thus prematurely have assumed. But maybe not. After all, once the candidates and the Parties agree to an election outcome, why should the voters matter?
It's ironic that when it comes to ignoring the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency, the politicos want us to accept the notion that all that matters is the electoral majority. Now when it comes to deciding who's sworn in after an election, the people's votes remain uncounted, and all that matters is the candidates' declarations of victory or concession. For those willing to understand, this little episode reveals the truth. Once respect for the Constitution and its principles has been discarded, we'll quickly discover that the notion of majority rule has been thrown away as well. The American people will find themselves cast down, to languish as other peoples have historically done, under the boot heel of arrogant elites who will resume their accustomed place as the dictators of human destiny.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Because the crisis of liberty has come to a head, it is today being assaulted up and down the line. A pervasive element of the assault is the abuse of the news and information media as a propaganda weapon to deceive and manipulate people so that they surrender government of, by and for the people without a fight.
From 3 PM until 11 PM today I will be joining Stan Solomon and others at cpnlive.com to promote the new alternative media- of, by and for the people- through which they can develop and share accurate news and information that aids in the exercise of liberty, rather than being part of its destruction.
Please stop by. Use the live call-in or chat room features to join in the discussion. The Conservative Political Network is a place where people loyal to liberty can gather their strength for its defense on the battlegrounds of opinion and debate that are deciding its fate today as surely as ever it was decided on the battlefields of conventional war. Will you volunteer for service?
I'll be among those recruiting folks to the cause today starting at 3 PM at cpnlive.com. Come by to say hello and have your say.
Monday, November 9, 2009
This morning, in an article by Lt. Colonel Allen B. West (US Army, ret.) about the Ft. Hood terrorist attack, a phrase arrested my attention: "The Saudis are not our friends and any American political figure who believes such is delusional." It took my mind back to the days when I was hosting a commentary show on MSNBC. I remember on several occasions presenting thoughts based on the theme, 'the Saudis are not our friends.' (Not long after came the events that led to the demise of the show.) And that was before the current corrupt Party system produced an election outcome allowing someone to occupy the Oval Office who could not suppress the urge to do public obeisance to the Saudi Monarch.
In his comments Lt. Col. West accurately assesses the Saudi role in developing the cadre of Islamic fundamentalists from whose ranks Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups recruit their dedicated assassins. "Saudi Arabia is sponsoring radical Imams who enter into our prisons and convert young men into a virulent Wahabbist ideology…They are sponsoring textbooks which present Islamic centric revisionist history in our schools."
Now it appears that the preparation and recruitment of Islamic jihad kamikazes has been successfully extended into the ranks of our military, endangering the lives of our personnel on and off the battlefield (as well as the lives of their dependents.) As an "Army brat" I spent the bulk of my early years living on one Army base or another. Though it was part of my father's profession to risk his life for the country, as a dependent I don't recall feeling that my life was at risk on base for even one moment the whole time I was growing up. Can the children of our troops today say the same?
Though not on the scale of the events of 9/11, the attack at Ft. Hood sharply conveys the same message those attacks were meant to convey- the terrorists can get past all our defenses to take people out in the very circumstances where life ought to be most secure. Indeed, the message of Ft. Hood is intended to go further, casting doubt on the reliability of all the instruments we use to defend the nation's security.
It is (tragically?) ironic that as we consider that message, the man who claims to be Commander-in-Chief seems more concerned with protecting the assailant from the bad opinion of the nation he assaulted than with protecting the nation and its warriors from future such attacks. I'm sure Obama thinks we shouldn't make too much of the fact that Major Nidal Malik Hasan attended a mosque
"controlled by the radical Muslim Brotherhood, a Saudi-funded worldwide jihadist movement which controls many of the mosques in America….Before attending Muslim Community Center, Hasan worshiped with his mother at the ultra-radical Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic center in Falls Church, Va. While there he worshiped alongside some of the hijackers who attacked the Pentagon on 9/11. He reportedly came under the spell of the mosque's imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who ministered privately to the hijackers."
After all, why assume that attending a hate-filled mosque had a bad influence on Hasan when attending Jeremiah Wright's hate-filled church left Obama filled with love and hope, all primed for the Nobel Peace prize? Why assume that imbibing the teachings of a radical imam affected Hasan's actions when we are supposed to go along with the notion that, despite his many years of admiring and studying radical socialists and communists only fringe loonies would suggest Obama is one of them?
Does the sacrifice of truth involved in treating Obama as though he were just another true blue American politico mean that we must close our eyes to facts on which the physical security, indeed the very survival of our country may depend? Will the political cowardice that refuses to see and answer the many questions about his background also refuse to seek answers about the questionable backgrounds of others who, like him, are in a position to do our nation grievous harm?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The occupant of the office he lays claim to is supposed to represent the body politic. People expect that his reactions will reflect its joys and pains i.e., the joys and pains of the American people as a whole. They expected him to react to the shocking events at Ft. Hood the way a person reacts to a grievous and unexpected wound to his body. Even a minor blow (like stubbing his toe) gets a pained reaction from the whole body. But the Ft. Hood attack is like a razor sharp knife that slips from its proper use to cut off a finger. It can only seem like a minor wound to someone whose gut isn't writhing with pain.
It was obvious to all that Obama's gut wasn't writhing. He spoke like a spectator taking notice of a scuffle on the sidelines. 'We shouldn't react until we know all the facts,' he says, as if the gut waits for a doctor's report rather than twisting with pain as a part of the body falls away.
With due regard to Bill Clinton, the simple fact is this. Obama doesn't feel our pain. To be sure, once it becomes clear that appearing to do so will serve his agenda of power, he will study the part and summon the right appearance when the script calls for it. But only fools will forget that this aspect of the role doesn't come naturally for him. His instinct isn't to feel for the country. It is to protect our assailants from any overreaction by Americans. He apparently assumes that we are prone to spiteful nastiness.
Nothing about this nation's reaction after the gut wrenching events of 9-11 justifies his fearful and insulting instincts. In many other countries (including the Islamic nations whose praises he sings so readily) there would have been violent street riots that claimed the lives of scores of innocent people, victimized because they professed the same religion as the terrorist assailants. In America we cried out in grief and anger, but we acted out first of all by falling to our knees in prayer to Almighty God. We rose again to seek justice, but even then we didn't lash out in prejudiced anger. We aimed our first blows at the beast that struck us, not even at others who, like some of the Palestinians, danced in their streets for joy as we mourned our dead.
Obama's reaction did not represent the American people. It came from years of associating with, studying, and even worshiping with people who hate us and everything we stand for in the world. In his heart of hearts I wager he even despises the decent motivation of many who voted for him. Many did so precisely because they naively believed that their action would lay to rest once and for all the stigma of institutionalized bigotry and hatred that mars all too many pages of our history as a nation. But there is a kind of relentless hating that sees in repentance only the admission of guilt. Though such people thought Obama's victory would stand for hope, every day it becomes more apparent that he brings only judgment.
What manner of man is this who now claims to preside over the affairs of the nation?
"The sojourner who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, and you shall not lend to him. He shall be the head, and you shall be the tail." (Deuteronomy 28:31, cf. Lamentations 5:8, Ezekiel 11:9)
Better they had sought for hope following God's example and looking "for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the breach before me for the land, that I should not destroy it..." (Ezekiel 22:30).
Friday, November 6, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Fulton Sheen Communism and the Conscience of the West
Monday, November 2, 2009
With the withdrawal of Dede Scozzafava from contention in the special election in NY's 23rd Congressional District, we see a clear result of implementing Michael Steele's infamous 80/20 approach to candidate selection. Grassroots conservatives still hampered by their allegiance to the Republican Party need to consider the lessons to be drawn from the Republican party's disappearance from that race. Scozzafava was a candidate typical of the predilections of GOP Party bosses and the majority of its big money fundraisers. They believe that the Party's formula for political victory requires people who oppose or just give lip service to conservative stands on the issues of moral principle, like respect for the unalienable right to life and defense of the natural family, but embrace conservative positions on other fronts, especially when it comes to money issues.
But the problem with candidates like Scozzafava is the priorities they represent. Her eager endorsement of the Obama faction Democrat in the race points to the truth. In principal, politicians like her are in tune with the moral and intellectual culture of the leftist Democrats. Their election stands on money issues are a matter of cynical political calculation. In this respect they are exactly what the left has always accused Republicans of being- people willing to sacrifice issues of human life and dignity to win power. They put money ahead of every other consideration. Then in order to prove that they aren't just promoters of heartless greed and selfishness, they pander to politically correct notions of "tolerance" and "sensitivity" with their stands on issues that involve respect for human nature and moral responsibility.
Newt Gingrich cited her stands on the money issues in the statement reported in an article at politico.com "warning conservative activists that their support for a third-party candidate in a key upcoming New York Special election is a "mistake."
The former Georgia congressman then rattled off a list of Scozzafava's conservative credentials.
"She has signed a no tax increase pledge. She is endorsed by the National Rifle Association. She has come out against cap and trade…She is opposed to the Obama health care plan. She will vote for John Boehner instead of Nancy Pelosi," Gingrich said. "All of those things together make her – it seems to me – a legitimate, authentic, Republican nominee."
Former U.S. House speaker Gingrich wants to make it crystal clear that conservative stands on issues of moral principle are not an essential part of the Republican identity. So long as a candidate is right on the issues of money and power, that's all that matters. In a CNN interview the present Minority Leader in the House, John Boehner, took pains to make a similar point. "Clearly she would be on the left side of our party," said Boehner, who had financially supported the campaign of the New York assemblywoman. "...We accept moderates in our party and we want moderates in our party." He then went on to reject the notion that Scozzafava's failure had anything to do with "pressure by the conservative "Tea Party" movement, citing his participation at rallies in Bakersfield, Calif., and Ohio…. I've work with these people, and what they're concerned about is the growing size of government. They want someone who's really going to actively reduce spending and reduce control here in Washington."
Even as their nominee falls prey to the revulsion caused by her denial of the moral principles of liberty, these GOP leaders want to pretend that the angry uprising caused by the Obama faction's betrayal of American values has nothing to do with moral concerns. They desperately want the votes and power that angry uprising may deliver. But they don't want to represent Americans who know in their hearts that the Obama threat isn't just about money or the usual Washington power grab. It represents a profound destruction of the whole American way of life, destruction rooted in Obama's rejection of the moral idea of God-given individual rights, and constitutional government based on the consent of the people.
The battle with the Obama faction is in the end a struggle to determine whether this moral concept of humanity will continue to be the basis for American government, or whether it will be replaced by a moral vision that discards the whole idea of a distinctive human nature so that human beings can be treated simply as objects for manipulation by an all powerful administrative state. At the grassroots many Americans, regardless of political labels, instinctively grasp what is at stake. They long for leaders who also understand, and will rise to defend the moral idea of America, from which so many have gained inspiration and hope, and for which so many have risked or given their lives.
An appreciation for this longing has been a hallmark of American statesmanship when leaders arose in response to the crises of the past. The Republican Party's founding President, Abraham Lincoln, understood and spoke to it as he represented and articulated the moral causes of the American Civil War. But GOP leaders today not only lack the depth for such statesmanship, they appear utterly devoid of any sense of the compassionate concern for humanity from which it arises. Their preference for so-called "moderates" proves the point. What is moderate about rejecting the natural right of human family life in order to accept a paradigm of human sexuality freed from the responsible discipline of human procreation? What is moderate about rejecting the idea of natural, and therefore inherent, human rights in order to accept a so-called "right" to murder our offspring?
This disregard for the natural obligation that binds one generation to the next is precisely what leads to the disgusting orgy of self-seeking that is piling a Mount Everest of debt onto the backs of our posterity with no regard for the national servitude it represents. Why should we expect people who claim the right to avoid their present responsibilities by killing their living offspring to care about the harm they do to the generations yet unborn? Why should we expect people encouraged to justify such murder with arguments about the inferior "quality" of the life they destroy to stop at similarly discarding the elderly when age takes the shine from their physical existence? If the idea of humanity doesn't prevent murder in the womb, all the more reason it should not prevail against the murder of those whose life declines toward death.
The idea of "moderation" touted by the GOP leadership orphans the very idea of humanity, and with it the fellow feeling (compassion) that should stay the hand from murder and neglect, especially when the victims include our offspring or the parents who engendered our lives. It rejects the disciplined understanding of liberty that made successful constitutional self-government possible in the United States.By accepting an idea of right that limited and disciplined our choice, we became a people capable of doing what the scoffing philosophers thought impossible- establishing a government of, by and for the people that promotes order and prosperous decency rather than licentious self-destruction. This is true moderation. Real moderates, therefore, will not support people like Scozzafava, or the covert Scozzafavas the cynical, self-seeking GOP leadership insists on foisting off as "conservatives." They will instead seek out representatives who work to conserve the American idea of right. This is the heart and soul of the conservative cause, which in the end is just the cause of lasting liberty.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
There was a time when what the people in this video experienced would have had liberty loving Americans manning the ramparts. Have the Congressional leaders of the Obama faction decided to deny "the right of the people...to petition the government for a redress of grievances"? Obama promised "change", and as I predicted what we are getting is a regime change- from a free society to a totalitarian government dictatorship. The Constitution is being systematically shredded. At first it took a bit of thinking and discernment to notice it. Now they are openly behaving like the apparatchiks of a totalitarian government. Apparently they expect the people of this country to sit back and take it, as folks elsewhere have done.
On November 11 we will once again commemorate the brave souls who fought, risking and giving their lives, so that some hope for liberty would survive in Europe and elsewhere in the world. I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather die as they did than live in a country that has shamed and degraded their sacrifice by surrendering Constitutional liberty here at home. Are we really that anxious to be slaves on the national socialist plantation? Are we so pathetically desperate for the illusory benefits to be derived from government dictated lives? If so, I guess there are already no real Americans left?
[In my posting on September 15 I suggested making November 11 a day for declaring our freedom from the deceitful manipulators in the so-called main stream media. My friend Stan Solomon suggested that I spend Veterans Day with him on a web streamed program talking to people about the information crisis, and the new media that is developing in response to it.
But the crisis is clearly about more than how we inform our minds. It's quickly becoming a question of where we have put our American hearts, with the courage required to keep our nation truly free. With thoughts of the veterans who fought and died for it on our hearts, we must look for and find the resolve to imitate their courage now, in all that we do as citizens.
That's what I'll be talking about with Stan and other folks who visit with us on November 11. Join us at teapartylive.tv. And please help spread the word using your network of contacts. Programming will go from 9am to 10pm. We'll invite your participation through chat rooms and live call-ins.] I visit with Stan at teapartylive.tv every Tuesday at 7:30 pm. Tune in this week as we discuss the details of this special event.]