Every Patriot’s Resolve


Intro to ‘Every Patriot’s Resolve’

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted: 1/7/16

By Mark Alexander

During the two terms of George Washington’s Presidency there really no organized political parties as we see now in the present. There were Federalists that supported the passage and formation of the U.S. Constitution giving more political authority to a national government and the Anti-Federalists who believed the U.S. Constitution took on too much authority over the individual states that became the United States of America.

In a Mark Alexander post that I sense is a response to President Barack Hussein Obama’s usurpations exerting more authority over ‘We the People’ than even the Constitution intended with its Checks and Balances paradigm via Executive Orders (EO). Obama’s usage of Eos to by-pass Congress unconstitutionally has been a misuse of Executive power nearly from the beginning of the current President’s Administration now stretching to the end of his second term in Office. The most recent egregious EO as of this posting is the imposition of the President’s desire to control America’s guns way beyond the scope of the intentions of the Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (2nd Amendment – FindLaw.com)

Frankly much of the teary-eyed press conference on his gun control EO was something I could agree with when it comes individuals purchasing guns. BUT my concerns are the details on individuals that would limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves according to the Second Amendment. Also Obama did not provide a lot of details on the sellers of guns especially as it pertains to Joe American selling or giving a gun to a family member or to the next door neighbor Bubba American.

I listened to Judge Napolitano on Fox News tell some rules pertaining to an individual who doesn’t have a gun business but sells a gun. And I read a Napolitano article at Townhall.com about the requirements from doctors who listen to their patients talk about a gun. From that article:

He has also decreed that any licensee who fails to perform a background check on the person to whom the licensee has transferred a gun shall be guilty of a felony. Give a BB gun to your nephew on his 16th birthday without a federal license and you can go to prison.

By requiring physicians to report conversations with their patients about guns to the DHS, the president will be encouraging them to invade the physician-patient privilege; and I suspect that most doctors will ignore him.

Under the Constitution, fundamental liberties (speech, a free press, worship, self-defense, travel and privacy, to name a few) are accorded the highest protection from governmental intrusion. One can only lose a fundamental right by READ ENTIRETY (Quote from page 2The Constitution, the President and Guns; By Judge Andrew Napolitano; Townhall.com; 1/7/16)

I am convinced there are more unconstitutional threats to the Obama EO that I haven’t been able to find – yet. I wonder if Obama intends to bury the EO details under Executive Privilege.

Here is Mark Alexander’s post that shows respect for the Constitution, Patriotism and if you pay attention you will realize the Founding Fathers’ intentions about the Federal government and religious faith.

JRH 1/7/16

Please Support NCCR

********************

Every Patriot’s Resolve

Timeless Advice for 2016

 

By Mark Alexander

January 6, 2016

The Patriot Post

“Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.” –Benjamin Franklin (1772)

This past week, my family’s ancestral grandfather clock rang in its 266th new year. This early American instrument, which towers above our dining room table, was set into motion in 1750 by its maker, Benjamin Chandlee, the eldest son of the first immigrant in my maternal family line.

That same year, Benjamin also completed an almost identical clock for Henry “Light-Horse Harry” Lee, a cavalry officer in George Washington’s revolutionary army, who bequeathed that clock to his son, Robert E. Lee. It now stands in the president’s house at Washington and Lee University. (In addition to being among the earliest and most respected American clockmakers, the Chandlees also produced George Washington’s surveying instruments.)

I mention this clock by way of making this point: Our New Year’s Eve celebration was not defined by celebrity fanfare in Times Square, but in the rich context of American history and the legacy of our family and Founders.

That legacy frames the mission of The Patriot Post’s advocacy for individual Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. As my friend Cal Thomas says, “The Patriot Post interprets current issues in the conservative context of American history — the immutable context of American Liberty.”

Unlike the now-ubiquitous Internet publications and blogs, every word of analysis our Patriot editors have posted since our inception has been tempered by historical context. That distinguishes The Patriot Post from every other news, policy and opinion source on the Web, with the exception of our friends at The Heritage Foundation, who were instrumental in our launch 20 years ago. That is also why we have been on the Web longer than virtually any other publication.

Today, we are charging into 2016. As anticipated, this year began with yet another leftist assault on American Liberty and its most fundamental assurance, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Barack Obama’s faux tears when announcing his latest constitutional insult would not have passed even the worst B-movie standards.

Of course, Obama and his Socialist Democratic Party statists know that, in the words of James Madison, “[T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any.”

Those words ring truer today than ever — and it is precisely that “barrier against the enterprises of ambition” that leftists would most like to demolish.

And, as Madison’s Supreme Court appointee, Joseph Story, confirmed in his “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

As we set about laying the foundation for real change in 2016, I’ve chosen some wise words of advice from a few of our Founders that best serve as a beacon to all American Patriots!

From George Washington: “Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience. … Do not conceive that fine Clothes make fine Men, any more than fine feathers make fine Birds. A plain genteel dress is more admired and obtains more credit than lace and embroidery in the Eyes of the judicious and sensible. … Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence; true friendship is a plant of slow growth, and must undergo and withstand the shocks and adversity before it is entitled to the appellation. … Your love of Liberty – your respect for the laws – your habits of industry – and your practice of the moral and religious obligations, are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness. … We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times. … The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. … Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind! … We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die.”

From Thomas Jefferson: “Determine never to be idle. No person will have occasion to complain of the want of time, who never loses any. It is wonderful how much may be done, if we are always doing. … It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition. … It is a happy circumstance in human affairs that evils which are not cured in one way will cure themselves in some other. … Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of Providence.”

From Thomas Paine: “Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice. … These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. … I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. … The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. … The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. … What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.”

From Benjamin Franklin: “Have you something to do tomorrow; do it to-day. … Strive to be the greatest man in your country, and you may be disappointed. Strive to be the best and you may succeed: he may well win the race that runs by himself. … A Spoonful of Honey will catch more Flies than a Gallon of Vinegar. … Sloth, like Rust, consumes faster than Labour wears; while the used Key is always bright… Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time; for that’s the stuff life is made of. … Early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise. … Wish not so much to live long as to live well.”

The foes of Liberty should take note of these words from the Declaration of the Cause and Necessity of Taking up Arms (1775): “With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live as slaves.”

Patriots, in this presidential election year, I invoke this timeless wisdom from George Washington’s farewell address (1796): “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” Indeed, there are among even the ranks of Republican presidential contenders some pretenders. Caveat Emptor! The future of Liberty hinges on the ability and willingness of grassroots Patriots to distinguish between the genuine article and the false prophets.

Finally, a word from Ronald Reagan, the man who lifted me, when a young college student, from the liberal abyss, and called millions in my generation into reverence for the fundamentals of American Liberty: “Live each day to the fullest. Live each day with enthusiasm, optimism and hope. If you do, I am convinced that your contribution to this wonderful experiment we call America will be profound.”

Thank you for sustaining The Patriot Post’s advocacy of Liberty by your support of our mission and operations budget in 2015!

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

__________________

*PUBLIUS*

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2016 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

© 2016, The Patriot Post.

About The Patriot Post

About Mark Alexander

Donate Online

‘One Nation Under God’ According to Jon McNaughton


John R. Houk

© August 21, 2015

On the Facebook group Evangelicals Gathering To Pray for our Country I found an outstanding post on his painting “One Nation Under God”. The painting is by Jon McNaughton and it was a ‘share’ from his facebook page. McNaughton’s original post was on July 6, 2015. My original intention was to post McNaughton’s Facebook entry as I found it shared at the Pray for our Country group. But the Facebook video embed included the text which I found inconvenient for my purpose.

McNaughton makes a living painting very patriotic and symbolic portraits. His Facebook description does not do the painting the justice I believe it should get. So this is what I am going to do. I am going to cross post some Youtube versions that explains the portrait better. Including one video that shows close-ups with patriotic music in the background – very inspiring. I will also include the Jon McNaughton facebook post from July 6 to see if that video shows up when I embed it.

To be honest the Facebook post includes a link providing a way to purchase a print of “One Nation Under God” which is something I highly encourage. I also recommend you check out some other patriotic prints of some original McNaughton prints.

After the Facebook post I wish to include one extra video that is only 48 seconds explaining McNaughton’s portrait of Obama burning the U.S. Constitution.

JRH 8/21/15

Please Support NCCR

*******************

VIDEO: Artist John McNaughton gives a brief introduction to “One Nation Under God” painting

Posted by rockettelli

Posted on Aug 30, 2011

Watch patriotic artist John McNaughton explain some of the prominent figures in his historic painting, “One Nation Under God”. For a limited time, you can receive $5.00 off the purchase of his painting. In addition, you’ll also receive three 5×7 cards, the Constitution Booklet, a Reference Guide, and a 1 hour DVD of the artist explaining the story behind the painting and discussing all of the people featured in the painting. Go to buyonenationundergod.com [link is dead] and use Promo Code KCDISC5 to receive $5.00 off your order.

++

VIDEO: One Nation Under God – Jon McNaughton

Posted by Artsartisan

Posted on Dec 20, 2014

This video was created with thankful appreciation to Jon McNaughton. Jon, thanks for this beautiful painting which declares the profound truth of the creation of the United States of America. The music is performed by the Amen Choir and the London Philharmonic Orchestra. The music is from the album “Hymns Triumphant”.

Music: “Battle Hymn Of The Republic” by London Philharmonic Choir

++++++++++++

One Nation Under God – Jon McNaughton

By Jon McNaughton

Facebook Page

July 6, 2015 11:56am


This simple phrase, added to the pledge of allegiance over 50 years ago has been the source of unbelievable debate and heated controversy. Likewise, the phrase ‘In God We Trust’ on our currency has been targeted and continues to be attacked as improper and politically incorrect. Lawsuits have been filed and legal minds employed to ascertain whether such statements violate the concept of ‘separation of church and state’.

As this debate continues, some so called experts have implied or concluded that our Founding Fathers and Patriots were not religious. These secular champions, in an effort to further their own causes, have even painted these great men and women from our history as being devoid of religious passions or even a belief in God. This is a part of their strategy to remove any discussion of God from the public forum.

These men and women were passionately religious and saw the hand of God all around them. To God they gave Thanks for His Hand in the founding of this great nation. To Him, according to their own testimony they turned for wisdom and strength when life and liberty hung in the balance. Certainly the debate on separation of church and state will continue. But no one can dispute how our Founding Fathers and Patriots felt about God. The record is clear!

To order a print, please visit: http://jonmcnaughton.com/content/ZoomDetailPages/OneNationUnderGod.html

‘One Nation Under God’ is Jon McNaughton’s witness and reminder that those who went before us knew from whence their blessings came!

+++

One Nation Under God

MCNAUGHTON

McNaughton’s response to liberal criticisms of “One Nation Under God.”

I would like to take a minute to explain some of the points of confusion for those who wish to interpret my picture.

  1. Each figure including Christ represents a symbol. Everything about the painting is symbolic. I don’t pretend to know what Christ looks like. As I stated in my interview, I wanted to create an image that would instantly be recognizable as Jesus. I am not painting an anthropological Jesus. Nobody would recognize him if I painted him that way.
  1. The figures in the background have been the source of great debate. Let me make myself clear from my writing that just because they stand behind Christ, does not mean they are devout Christians evoking all to come unto Jesus and be baptized?! What I am saying is that they represent those who have influenced our country and our Constitution in a positive way. Many of these men and women gave their lives so we could have the liberties we enjoy. We are now at a time when these liberties are in peril. Our government has grown so big and powerful that the rights of the individual are at risk. This is what the Constitution was about—to limit the size of government. The patriotic heroes who stand behind Christ and the Constitution are pleading with us to defend the cause of liberty. Except for the pregnant woman in the lower right corner, these people symbolize those who have pushed our country towards Socialism. (The pregnant woman’s place in the painting is explained on the website.)
  1. In connection to my last statement, I knew when I painted this picture that Thomas Payne (so sorry I offended some of you for spelling his name wrong), and Thomas Jefferson were Deists. That was irrelevant to me. I believe God brings about His purposes through different people. Even those who aren’t baptized or following the accepted Christian religion.
  1. Not only have I received flack for this painting from Liberals, but also from the Right as well. Why did you include JFK? Why Lincoln? Why Teddy Roosevelt? I painted this picture to reflect my personal feelings about America. This is not a Republican painting. This is not anything other than one artist’s personal feelings about his love for Christ, this country and a desire to make a point about where we are headed. I hoped that this painting would encourage dialogue and debate. It is important that you understand my position before you make assumptions.
  1. One of the most ridiculous criticisms I have read is that I don’t have enough minorities in the painting. The way people throw around the word “racist” these days is overkill. From the beginning of the painting I chose to include a variety for ethnicities under the “Strong Americans” category. I also used different races in the background where I could. One of the most important positions in the painting is where the black U. S. soldier is standing.
  1. Some of the chatter going around on these liberal blog sites I feel is unfounded. One of the things I said to myself from the beginning was the knee jerk reaction some people would have to the painting would be very revealing as to which side they personally stood in the picture. If you don’t believe the Constitution was inspired of God, fine. We will agree to disagree.
  1. Some so called “art experts” feel that a true painting should not be explained, but left to the viewer to interpret. I may not reveal all my thoughts, but I want the world to know what I think and feel—that’s why I painted it! Great art causes one to feel. To feel deeply. I knew this painting would evoke emotion on both sides. I knew it was a unique concept, having never been painted before. I don’t care if the composition is outdated or whether some other artist may have painted their composition better than me. The message stands alone.
  1. Why Satan? I don’t for a second believe he looks like that, but I do believe he is real. Again, the image is symbolic. Having Satan near these people doesn’t mean that they are Satanic. If you believe in God, surely you would believe in a Satan.
  1. OK, how could McNaughton be so ignorant about Charles Darwin and “Origin of the Species?” Yes, I have read the book and yes I do believe in many of the theories it espouses. What?! No, I don’t’ think the book should be burned and kicked out of the school curriculum. Some of the rebuttals I have heard in regard to this subject in my painting are unfounded. I believe that this book is a standard that the left uses to push Christianity out of the Educational Forum. I believe that we need faith in our schools. I believe that I did not evolve from an ape. You may disagree, but that is how I feel. Do I believe Evolution should be taught? Yes. Should Christian thought or any other religion be allowed to be discussed without reservation? Yes, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.

This is my personal witness and testimony as to the state of this nation. If you would like to ask more questions about my painting, I invite you to do so. I would be pleased to answer any honest questions regarding, “One Nation Under God.”

+++++++++++++

VIDEO: One Nation Under Socialism – Jon McNaughton

Published by McNaughtonArt

Published on Mar 17, 2012

www.McNaughtonArt.com [Dead Link]

“I pledge allegiance to the United States of America,
And not to an ideology, which can never stand,
One nation under socialism, divisive,
With no liberty or justice for anyone.”

This November, you will make a choice. Will you choose One Nation Under Socialism?

McNaughton’s Answers to Questions Regarding This Painting:
Why the title “One Nation Under Socialism?”

Our federal government has been moving in the direction of socialism for over one hundred years. Many presidents and politicians have compromised the Constitution as we have given away our freedoms under the guise of entitlements and government intervention. When the people are willing to sacrifice the next generation for their current lifestyles and allow the federal government to have all the power for an illusory mess of pottage—you have chosen One Nation Under Socialism.

What do you mean by an ideology, which can never stand?

I will not support an ideology, which will lead to the destruction of America. In the history of the world, never has there been a recorded example where Socialism has led to the betterment of the human condition or improved the liberty of the people. I know there are varying degrees and definitions of “socialism.” Even the European model of Democratic Socialism has proven to be a dismal failure. Do you want to see our country become like Greece, Italy, Portugal, or even Great Britain?

What do you mean by “divisive, with no liberty or justice for anyone?”

Socialism uses the illusion of offering fairness and justice for everyone by redistributing the wealth of the nation; picking and choosing winners and losers. This administration has taken over our health care system, given bailouts to the automotive industry, banking industry and energy industry. They support the “Occupy Wall Street” movement of increased taxing of the rich to pay for the welfare of the “less rich.” The Constitution never guaranteed equal things—only equal rights and justice. In America we should be FREE TO SUCCEED and FREE TO FAIL!

At this very moment our Constitution is literally going up in flames. What will you do to preserve the Constitution and save America?

Why Socialism Failed …

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/why-socialism-failed [Link dead as of this posting]

Learn more at: http://www.jonmcnaughton.com

______________________

About Jon McNaughton

Jon McNaughton is an established artist from Utah whose new paintings have attracted the international attention of millions over the last few years. Highly detailed religious and patriotic subjects are the focus of his paintings. The artist’s experiences and faith are the inspiration for his work.

“I have traveled to many places around the world to know my subjects, but when I work on a painting with many figures I will usually pose models and photograph them and then paint them as I see them in my mind. I choose to paint from the heart and evoke my personal vision into each painting.”

I prefer to paint pictures that I believe have relevance to what is going on in the world, that make a statement, that stand for something. I hope people will study the paintings and try to understand the deeper meaning. Some of the themes are controversial, but I feel strongly about what is happening in our world today.

There are three kinds of people who view my paintings: Those who like it, those who hate it, and those who simply don’t understand. I am especially interested in this last category. I hope my work will create conversation and reach people on a deeper level. I like to use metaphor and multiple levels of meaning to reach my viewer. If it makes them think and feel, then it is successful.”

Jade Helm 15 and the Conspiracy Theories


Mark Alexander spanks Alex Jones over Jade Helm 15 Conspiracy Theories then Alexander goes on to show there are more patriots in the U.S. Military than any Leftist revolutionaries that an Obama might drum up for martial law or suspending the Constitution. The icing on the cake is Alexander’s brief explanation for the reason the Founding Fathers made a Second Amendment is to give the American people the opportunity to rise up against a rogue despotic government.

JRH 7/17/15

Please Support NCCR

*************************

 

Jade Helm 15 and the Conspiracy Theories

A Reality Check on Military Exercises

ByMark Alexander

July 15, 2015

The Patriot Post

“Nothing is so contagious as opinion, especially on questions which … beget in the mind a distrust of itself.” —James Madison (1790)

Have you heard about Jade Helm 15? If the answer is “no,” then you don’t get your “news” from the paranoid purveyors of conspiracy theories at websites such as Infowars and World Net Daily. They gin up concern about non-issues in order to drive traffic to their websites — and to thereby sell advertising, products and services.

Jade Helm 15 is the name of a major military exercise scheduled to run between 15 July and 15 September. The exercise is coordinated by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and involves special forces units of the Army and other service branches.

According to the Army SpecOps Command: “While multi-state training exercises such as these are not unique to the military, the size and scope of Jade Helm sets this one apart. To stay ahead of the environmental challenges faced overseas, Jade Helm will take place across seven states. However, Army Special Operations Forces (ARSOF) will only train in five states: Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado. The diverse terrain in these states replicates areas Special Operations Soldiers regularly find themselves operating in overseas. The training exercise will be conducted on private and public land with the permission of the private landowners, and from state and local authorities.”

An unclassified power point lays out the exercise in some detail. It involves about 1,200 military personnel, primarily Army Green Berets and infantry, but also some Navy SEALS and Air Force special operators.

Compared to other recent domestic military exercises, Jade Helm is large for peacetime practice (if you consider these to be “peacetimes”) and it’s the “the size and scope” that has all the conspiracy conscripts concerned that its real purpose is to prepare for an imminent declaration of martial law.

In Texas, home to almost two million active duty military personnel and veterans, the king of charismatic conspiracy kooks, Alex Jones, has generated a lot of heartburn among his unwitting lemmings.

Jones says he stopped using marijuana because “it made me paranoid,” then dropped out of Austin Community College before launching his Austin-based conspiracy enterprises, Infowars and his populist radio programs. Over the last few months, he has alerted his two million listeners that Jade Helm is “way worse than you realize,” claiming it was really about “military, police working together toward population control,” and “the U.S. Army’s plan to wage war on the American people.” According to Jones, “They’re going to practice breaking into things and stuff. This is going to be hellish. Now this is just a cover for deploying the military on the streets… This is an invasion … in preparation for the financial collapse and maybe even Obama not leaving office.”

Jones has ginned up concern with headlines like “Beyond Denial: Preparations for Martial Law in America,” warning that the “U.S. military is positioning itself to take over the states and declare martial law.”

This is the same Alex Jones who insists the federal government staged the Oklahoma City bombing and that George Bush organized the 9/11 attack.

He has stirred up so many Lone Star folks that Gov. Greg Abbott is having the State Guard monitor Jade Helm in an effort to quell the discontent. According to Abbott, “It is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed.”

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert says his office “has been inundated with calls,” and adds, “Certainly, I can understand these concerns. When leaders within the current administration believe that major threats to the country include those who support the Constitution, are military veterans, or even ‘cling to guns or religion,’ patriotic Americans have reason to be concerned.”

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mack Thornberry (R-TX) says that the idea of our military acting as Obama’s “private army” was “just silly.” And of course it is.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said he had “no reason to doubt” the nature and purpose of this exercise, and offered a rational explanation for the Jade Helm concerns: “I think part of the reason is we have seen, for six years, a federal government disrespecting the liberty of the citizens. And that produces fear. When you see a federal government that is attacking our free speech rights, or religious liberty rights, [and] our Second Amendment rights, that produces distrust as to government.”

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter assured those concerned that the DoD has been “very open and upfront about our training activities” and “very responsive” to citizen inquiries — and they have.

Unfortunately, otherwise rational grassroots folks get swept up by conspiracy charismatics.

So, reality check — should folks be concerned about “the size and scope” of the Jade Helm exercise?

The short answer is “no,” but I admit that my perspective on such exercises is somewhat biased.

Having held for almost 25 years an executive-level appointment in a reserve national security capacity (one of those so-called “shadow government” folks assigned to FEMA/DHS), I have been involved in more than a few training exercises for senior military personnel.

Thus, I can assure you that the number of conservative Patriots in uniform is much higher than in any other profession. May I remind you that, according to reputable annual surveys conducted by The Military Times, Barack Obama’s approval rating among military personnel has fallen from a paltry 35% in 2009 to just 15% now, while his disapproval ratings have increased to 55%.

Obama loathes our military Patriots, as most of them do him. Frankly, he has far more concern about military loyalties than the good people of Texas need have. The notion that somehow our military Patriots will follow a pathological narcissist like Obama down a path to tyranny is patently absurd.

This is not to say that Americans should not be vigilant against the mischief that can infiltrate standing armies when a Socialist Democrat occupies the Executive Branch.

In 2010, we were alerted by some of our readers within the military that the designer of an Army security exercise listed the grassroots Tea Party among the terrorist groups that might assault Ft. Knox — “in order to make it more realistic.” We exposed this exercise in a column titled “Army Preps for Tea Party ‘Terrorists’,” and within hours of publication we heard from the commanding officer at Ft. Knox that the exercise was scrapped and the individual who drafted that scenario was being disciplined.

But there is a wide gulf between rational vigilance and the conspiracy hysterics currently associated with Jade Helm.

Rational vigilance has its origins with our Founders.

In 1783, George Washington wrote, “A large standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a Country, yet a few Troops, under certain circumstances, are not only safe, but indispensably necessary.”

In 1787, in a speech before the Constitutional Convention, James Madison argued, “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”

Consequently, Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of our Constitution reads, “The Congress shall have Power To … raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years…”

In other words, our Founders understood that the size of our military should comport with the exigencies of the time. Unfortunately, the current CINC does not understand those exigencies.

Our Founders also understood that American security against a standing army whose leaders disregarded their solemn oaths to defend our Constitution was contained in the plain language of that venerable document’s Second Amendment as the first assurance of the unalienable Rights of Man.

In 1787 Noah Webster observed, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

Madison, who was the principal author of our Constitution, noted, “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … [T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”

Our Founders uniformly understood that the individual right to self-defense constituted the best defense of Liberty for the whole people. Madison’s Supreme Court appointee, Justice Joseph Story, best summed up the Second Amendment: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

A century after the American Revolution, Congress enacted a specific prohibition, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, greatly limiting the use of military forces by federal authorities in a domestic law enforcement capacity. The primary exception is the use of National Guard and state defense forces under the authority of the governor of a state.

So what to do with the conspiracy propagandists on the Left and Right?

First, it’s worth understanding the nature of such theories and those who buy into these deceptions.

Every conspiracy theory is a combination of a foundational fact plus a lot of fiction heaped upon it — and each depends on a basic maxim, “You can’t prove a negative.” Pop conspiracy theories are all constructed on this predictable formula: 10% substance and 90% fragrance.

Most of these conspiracies assert the existence of a global political or economic “star chamber,” often puppet masters who are members of the Bilderberg Group or the Council on Foreign Relations.

Most disciples of such nonsense are not inherently ignorant or bad, but they harbor basic insecurities that compel them to grasp “straw man” explanations when their insecurities are triggered. The sense of order out of chaos derived from a conspiracy theory tends to satiate their insecurity. Notably, they are often most vulnerable to Internet conspiracy gurus, who decode events with greatly simplified theories. The most ardent adherents within these cults — the 9/11 “Truthers,” for example — have surrendered their willingness to discern fact from fiction in order to sustain their sense of security.

Beyond understanding the psychology behind this phenomenon, conspiracy theorists should be boldly called out for the pathetic frauds they are, and we should encourage anyone who subscribes to their folly to stop drinking their toxic Kool-Aid.

Jones, et al., are doing an enormous disservice to the conservative movement in Texas, dragging a lot of otherwise rational folks down a rat hole and creating unwarranted tension between civilian and military Patriots. Jones has never taken an oath “to Support and Defend” our Constitution, nor has he served a day in uniform. He has no understanding of the sense of duty, honor and sacrifice that forms the foundational drive among our military personnel.

He is promoting division between uniformed and non-uniformed Patriots at a time when military morale is very low.

Former Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican who served under Rick Perry, published a Dallas Morning News op-ed calling out the travesty of the Jade Helm conspiracy clowns. Dewhurst wrote, “Unfortunately, some Texans have projected their legitimate concerns about the competence and trustworthiness of President Barack Obama onto these noble warriors. This must stop.”

Indeed it must.

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

*PUBLIUS*

_____________________

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2015 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

 

About Mark M. Alexander

Executive Editor & Publisher, The Patriot Post

 

Mark Alexander is Executive Editor and Publisher of The Patriot Post

the Web’s “Voice of Essential Liberty”. His strong academic vitae in constitutional government and policy combined with his real-world occupational experience ensure his contributions as an essayist and analyst reflect the grassroots conservatism of the heartland, rather than the ubiquitous Beltway news and opinion.

 

Alexander attributes the character-rich content of his columns to the ethics and values modeled and instilled by his parents, the timeless traits of duty, honor, discernment, courage, personal responsibility, citizenship, generosity and compassion. He was raised to live the “third person” principle: God first, others second and self third — and notes that he “sometimes, by the grace of God, manages to conduct his life in that order.”

 

Typical of many in his generation, Alexander learned the merits of hard work and civic responsibility early. His READ THE REST

 

About The Patriot Post

 

“Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind! —George Washington

 

Mission

 

The Patriot Post is the highly acclaimed Journal of Essential Liberty, advocating individual rights and responsibilities, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.

 

The Patriot is a primary touchstone of First Principles for grassroots Americans, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks. Our editorial team reviews thousands of reputable news, policy and opinion pages in order to craft a concise, informative and entertaining Daily Digest analyzing the most significant issues.

 

We believe, as did our Founders and generations of Patriots since, that we have an obligation “to support and defend” Liberty and the unalienable Rights of Man, ensured by the Rule of Law enshrined in our Republic’s Constitution.

 

The Patriot Post frames READ THE REST

 

Support The Patriot Post

Liberty or Big Brother Order – YOU Choose


John R. Houk

© July 12, 2015

Somehow (probably of my own doing) I have found myself on the mailing list of the Campaign for Liberty. Undoubtedly since I reside in the great State of Oklahoma, the national organization has funneled my name to the local State chapter. The Campaign for Liberty is plugged into the Conservative-Libertarian views of former Representative Ron Paul. I confess I have an affinity for Ron Paul’s policy reforms on a national level; however his foreign policy ideals are something I am in great disagreement.

I’m not real big on Ron Paul isolationist policies to manage the national budget in a more efficient manner. It is my belief once America relinquishes the reach of its military prowess, ideologies (the variations of Marxist-Socialist transnationalism), religions of hate (viz. Islam and Islamic Supremacist ideologies) and various reawakenings of foreign American-hating nationalism (e.g. Russia and Iran); THEN America’s National Security will be vulnerable to outside intrusions into our way of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The thing is though, if America continues on the Left Wing path that Obama’s transformation agenda has sent we Americans, great turmoil will occur in our nation once the rest of the Americans awaken to the loss of the American way of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Once that awakening occurs then those who still are drawn to the Founding Fathers’ revolutionary paradigm will recall the words framed by Thomas Jefferson and signed by the representatives from Thirteen British-American Colonies demanding the bonds of tyranny from an unjust government be ended – by arms if necessary.

In that spirit I share this email not only with my fellow Oklahomans but also with the citizens of all these United States to take a moment and contemplate the posterity of American freedoms especially under the light of the Christian principles and morality those former Englishmen and other Europeans brought to the then British American Colonies to worship as freely as an equal to the Church of England.

It is time for Americans to unite under the Freedom and Liberty issues that draw us together and not to hold the slimmer issues in which we might be in variance to separate us. For example, I am not an isolationists. BUT a time may arise in which isolationism vs. international military power is rendered irrelevant in the face of any tyranny that threatens our moral Freedom, moral Liberty and our moral Common Good.

JRH 7/12/15

Please Support NCCR

**********************

They Want You to Stop Paying Attention

By Kirk Shelley – Oklahoma State Coordinator

Sent from: Oklahoma Campaign for Liberty

Sent: 7/9/2015 3:04 PM

After election season, legislators count on you to stop paying attention, go back to your daily lives, and forget about politics until they need your vote again.

They want you to blindly believe their legislative votes will line up with their party platform and campaign rhetoric.

What happens if you believe them?

The state apparatus will continue to bury your liberties and squander your resources.

And you can most certainly count on the horse-trading and backroom deals to continue.

They’ll sell your rights to the highest bidder . . . if you let them.

If you’re willing to take the lead and help Campaign for Liberty throw a wrench in their plans, please click here to let us know.

Every year, thousands of bills are passed across the nation. The vast majority of them limit your liberty in some way.

In fact, there are currently so many laws on the books at the federal level alone, the Congressional Research Service has admitted they can’t even keep track of all of them!

It’s said the average American is guilty of breaking 3 federal laws every day and they don’t even know it.

Imagine how that translates when you add in state and local laws.

Many (if not most) bills are passed every year because some powerful, establishment insiders and their well-financed cronies hit the right pressure points and bought the right legislators to get the job done.

And the result is a windfall to those same politicians and their powerful allies, but they annihilate your liberties.

Said to be one of the greatest historians, Gaius Tacitus said, “The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.”

How right he was.

Will you help Campaign for Liberty fight back?

If you’re willing to help by taking the lead in your area, please click here to let us know.

All across the country, Campaign for Liberty grassroots leaders are taking on the status quo at the local, state, and national levels.

These activists have taken the time to learn and implement C4L’s winning model and they are defeating statist schemes at every level of government.

Do you believe in individual liberty and constitutional government?

Are you tired of Big Government’s attacks on your rights?

Are you ready to do what it takes to neutralize the anti-liberty politicians in your Township, School Board, City Council, and State Legislature?

If you’re willing to learn and apply our proven model, you’ll be provided with extensive training options and materials, as well as support from our volunteer leadership network and State Operations staff.

Do you have the desire to lead but lack experience? Don’t let that stop you! Some of the most successful C4L coordinators in the country started out with little or no experience.

Our training materials will provide you with:

· Tips on how to start and grow your local group;

· A clear understanding on why the typical “Access-Based” lobbying method does not work;

· Proven techniques other successful C4L groups are implementing;

· Tips on how to employ these effective techniques to achieve meaningful victory;

· And much, much more.

You don’t need vast experience in the field to be selected as a new coordinator.

If you are serious about learning what it takes to win, are willing to apply the C4L model, and have a desire to lead others to victory, we have the tools to help you succeed.

If you’re ready to foil the establishment’s schemes against your liberty, click here to let us know.

In Liberty,

Kirk Shelley
Oklahoma State Coordinator
Campaign for Liberty

P.S. Every year, thousands of bills are passed across the nation. The vast majority of them limit your liberty in some way.

Gaius Tacitus was correct when he said, “The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.”

If you’re tired of Big Government’s attacks on your liberties, believe in limited, constitutional government, and are ready to join the winning team advocating for freedom, I want to hear from you.

Click here to let us know you’re willing to take the lead and help Campaign for Liberty throw a wrench in the establishment’s plans.

_____________________

Liberty or Big Brother Order – YOU Choose

John R. Houk

© July 12, 2015

_____________________

They Want You to Stop Paying Attention

 

Campaign for Liberty Oklahoma State Page

 

Campaign for Liberty (National) About Page

 

Statement of Principles

 

Americans inherit from our ancestors a glorious tradition of freedom and resistance to oppression.  Our country has long been admired by the rest of the world for her great example of liberty and prosperity—a light shining in the darkness of tyranny.

 

But many Americans today are frustrated.  The political choices they are offered give them no real choice at all.  For all their talk of “change,” neither major political party as presently constituted challenges the status quo in any serious way.  Neither treats the Constitution with anything but contempt.  Neither offers any kind of change in monetary policy.  Neither wants to make the reductions in government that our crushing debt burden demands.  Neither talks about bringing American troops home not just from Iraq but from around the world.  Our country is going bankrupt, and none of these sensible proposals are even on the table.

 

This destructive bipartisan consensus has suffocated American political life for many years.  Anyone who tries to ask fundamental questions instead of cosmetic ones is ridiculed or ignored.

 

That is why the Campaign for Liberty was established: to highlight the neglected but common-sense principles we champion and reinsert them into the American political conversation.

 

The U.S. Constitution is at the heart of what the Campaign for Liberty stands for, since the very least we can demand of our government is fidelity to its own governing document.  Claims that our Constitution was meant to be a “living document” that judges may interpret as they please are fraudulent, incompatible with republican government, and without foundation in the constitutional text or the thinking of the Framers.  Thomas Jefferson spoke of binding our rulers down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution, and we are proud to follow in his distinguished lineage.

 

With our Founding Fathers, we also believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy.  Inspired by the old Robert Taft wing of the Republican Party, we are convinced that the American people cannot remain free and prosperous with 700 military bases around the world, troops in 130 countries, and a steady diet of war propaganda.  Our military overstretch is undermining our national defense and bankrupting our country.

 

We believe that the free market, reviled by people who do not understand it, is the most just and humane economic system and the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known.

We believe with Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and F.A. Hayek that central banking distorts economic decision making and misleads entrepreneurs into making unsound investments.  Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks’ interference with interest rates sets the stage for economic downturns.  And the central bank’s ability to create money out of thin air transfers wealth from the most vulnerable to those with political pull, since it is the latter who receive the new money before the price increases it brings in its wake have yet occurred.  For economic and moral reasons, therefore, we join the great twentieth-century economists in opposing the Federal Reserve System, which has reduced the value of the dollar by 95 percent since it began in 1913.

 

We oppose the dehumanizing assumption that all issues that divide us must be settled at the federal level and forced on every American community, whether by activist judges, a power-hungry executive, or a meddling Congress.  We believe in the humane alternative of local self-government, as called for in our Constitution.

 

We oppose the transfer of American sovereignty to supranational organizations in which the American people possess no elected representatives.  Such compromises of our country’s independence run counter to the principles of the American Revolution, which was fought on behalf of self-government and local control.  Most of these organizations have a terrible track record even on their own terms: how much poverty have the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund actually alleviated, for example?  The peoples of the world can interact with each other just fine in the absence of bureaucratic intermediaries that undermine their sovereignty.

 

We believe that freedom is an indivisible whole, and that it includes not only economic liberty but civil liberties and privacy rights as well, all of which are historic rights that our civilization has cherished from time immemorial.

 

Our stances on other issues can be deduced from these general principles.

 

Our country is ailing.  That is the bad news.  The good news is that the remedy is so simple and attractive: a return to the principles our Founders taught us.  Respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, individual liberty, sound money, and a noninterventionist foreign policy constitute the foundation of the Campaign for Liberty.

Examining 28 Founding Fathers Principles


John R. Houk

© July 1, 2015

I sent an email to myself that lists “28 Fundamental Principles of the Founding Fathers”. In the self-sent email I reminded myself to give credit to the blog contributor Robert Smith. I sent the email to myself on June 23 and for the life of me I can’t remember what the reference was inspiring me to self-send this email. If Robert happens to read this, he’ll probably remember.

The things is, between about 7 years of President Barack Hussein Obama whittling away the U.S. Constitution and around 40ish years of the Supreme Court stealthily transforming the Founding Fathers’ Constitution into the so-called Living Constitution, I believe it is time to recall some reasons why our Founding Fathers influenced THIRTEEN Colonies to leave the suzerainty of the British Crown to form a more perfect union of United States governed “… of the people, by the people, for the people,” rather than an unjust tyranny of Christian-hating (See HERE, HERE and HERE) Leftists.

So without further ado, compare today’s Federal Government with these 28 Founding Father Principles.

JRH 7/1/15

Please Support NCCR

***********************

28 Fundamental Principles of the Founding Fathers

Posted by JimBobWay

Posted on 5/20/2010, 1:39:50 PM

Free Republic

Originally from: Volusia 9/12 Project

About Volusia 9.12 Patriots

Discover the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Founding Fathers which they said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desired peace, prosperity, and freedom…

These beliefs have made possible more progress in 200 years than was made previously in over 5,000 years. Thus the title “The 5,000 Year Leap”.

The following is a brief overview of the principles found in The 5,000 Year Leap, and one chapter is devoted to each of these 28 principles…

Read more at: http://www.volusia912.org/The_28_Principles.pdf

+++

Principle 1 – The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law. Natural law is God’s law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

Principle 2 – A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong. “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” – Benjamin Franklin

Principle 3 – The most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders. “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who … will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.” – Samuel Adams

Principle 4 – Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” – George Washington

Principle 5 – All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible. The American Founding Fathers considered the existence of the Creator as the most fundamental premise underlying all self-evident truth. They felt a person who boasted he or she was an atheist had just simply failed to apply his or her divine capacity for reason and observation.

Principle 6 – All mankind were created equal. The Founders knew that in these three ways, all mankind are theoretically treated as: 1. Equal before God. 2. Equal before the law. 3. Equal in their rights.

Principle 7 – The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things. The Founders recognized that the people cannot delegate to their government any power except that which they have the lawful right to exercise themselves.

Principle 8 – Mankind are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights. “Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner [of the right] shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.” – William Blackstone

Principle 9 – To protect human rights, God has revealed a code of divine law. “The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found by comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity.” – William Blackstone

Principle 10 – The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people. “The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legislative authority.” – Alexander Hamilton

Principle 11 – The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical. “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes … but when a long train of abuses and usurpations … evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” – Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence

Principle 12 – The United States of America shall be a republic. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America And to the republic for which it stands….”

Principle 13 – A Constitution should protect the people from the frailties of their rulers. “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary…. [But lacking these] you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” – James Madison

Principle 14 – Life and liberty are secure only so long as the rights of property are secure. John Locke reasoned that God gave the earth and everything in it to the whole human family as a gift. Therefore the land, the sea, the acorns in the forest, the deer feeding in the meadow belong to everyone “in common.” However, the moment someone takes the trouble to change something from its original state of nature, that person has added his ingenuity or labor to make that change. Herein lies the secret to the origin of “property rights.”

Principle 15 – The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations. Prosperity depends upon a climate of wholesome stimulation with four basic freedoms in operation: 1. The Freedom to try. 2. The Freedom to buy. 3. The Freedom to sell. 4. The Freedom to fail.

Principle 16 – The government should be separated into three branches. “I call you to witness that I was the first member of the Congress who ventured to come out in public, as I did in January 1776, in my Thoughts on Government … in favor of a government with three branches and an independent judiciary. This pamphlet, you know, was very unpopular. No man appeared in public to support it but yourself.” – John Adams

Principle 17 – A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power by the different branches of government. “It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” – James Madison

Principle 18 – The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written Constitution. The structure of the American system is set forth in the Constitution of the United States and the only weaknesses which have appeared are those which were allowed to creep in despite the Constitution.

Principle 19 – Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained by the people. The Tenth Amendment is the most widely violated provision of the bill of rights. If it had been respected and enforced America would be an amazingly different country than it is today. This amendment provides: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Principle 20 – Efficiency and dispatch require that the government operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority. “Every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded [bound] by it.” – John Locke

Principle 21 – Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom. “The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent [to perform best]. – Thomas Jefferson

Principle 22 – A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men. “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence of others, which cannot be where there is no law.” – John Locke

Principle 23 – A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education. “They made an early provision by law that every town consisting of so many families should be always furnished with a grammar school. They made it a crime for such a town to be destitute of a grammar schoolmaster for a few months, and subjected it to a heavy penalty. So that the education of all ranks of people was made the care and expense of the public, in a manner that I believe has been unknown to any other people, ancient or modern. The consequences of these establishments we see and feel every day [written in 1765]. A native of America who cannot read and write is as rare … as a comet or an earthquake.” John Adams

Principle 24 – A free people will not survive unless they stay strong. “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” – George Washington

Principle 25 – “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” – Thomas Jefferson, given in his first inaugural address.

Principle 26 – The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore the government should foster and protect its integrity. “There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated.” Alexis de Tocqueville

Principle 27 – The burden of debt is as destructive to human freedom as subjugation by conquest. “We are bound to defray expenses [of the war] within our own time, and are unauthorized to burden posterity with them…. We shall all consider ourselves morally bound to pay them ourselves and consequently within the life [expectancy] of the majority.” – Thomas Jefferson

Principle 28 – The United States has a manifest destiny to eventually become a glorious example of God’s law under a restored Constitution that will inspire the entire human race. The Founders sensed from the very beginning that they were on a divine mission. Their great disappointment was that it didn’t all come to pass in their day, but they knew that someday it would. John Adams wrote: “I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.”

__________________

Examining 28 Founding Fathers Principles

John R. Houk

© July 1, 2015

___________________________

28 Fundamental Principles of the Founding Fathers

 

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 

Republican Party’s Fiascos


Justin O. Smith is a frequent contributor to this blog. I tell you this because every once in a while Justin’s Father Robert makes a contribution. This is one of those cases.

Robert Smith has become weary of politicians in Congress NOT making decisions for the good of the citizens (i.e. WE THE PEOPLE) of the United States of America. Robert assumes that Conservatives still have the Founding Fathers’ vision of Liberty and Freedom for Americans whose government is supposed to be “… as the Founding Fathers recognized, to protect people’s inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.” (The italic text is a quote from: The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty; By Craig Biddle; The Objective Standard, Winter 2011, Vol. 6, No. 4.)

President Abraham Lincoln fought a war to preserve the Union of the United States of America to preserve and establish a more perfect union of States in which the role of government, in line with the vision of the Founding Fathers, was pronounced in November 1963 a few months after the Battle of Gettysburg:

We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” (LINCOLN’S FAMOUS QUOTE AND ITS INSPIRATION [closing words of his Gettysburg Address, delivered on November 19, 1863]; quote/counterquote; 3/2/15)

Robert has correctly surmised that our Congress has forsaken this original vision transforming America from a people oriented Representative Republic into a ruling elite acting government telling people how to live and how to believe that what humanity feels is the best virtue of morality. I surmise Robert’s target of unconstitutional elitists are the Democrats and the GOP Establishment.

JRH 6/23/15

Please Support NCCR

***************************

Republican Party’s Fiascos

By Robert Smith

Sent: 6/23/2015 5:17 AM

Our Senators and Representatives are sent to Washington by “we the people” to read the bills presented to them. It is then incumbent on them to explain to us, their constituents, and the contents of those bills, along with the reasons that they are either good or bad for our country.

Congress recently passed the Trade Promotion Authority bill, in part, for greater transparency and so we can read it. In other words, do their job and read it for them.

I do not need to read the bill, simply from understanding that it opens an easier path for passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership through a simple majority vote.; I do not need to read bills, such as these, in order to know that they are not in the best interests of our country. All one needs to do is to view the results from the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the ensuing mass exodus of our U S companies to other countries.

Since our Senators and Representatives cannot, or will not, do their jobs, we need to fire them. To rid ourselves of our Representatives is relatively easy, since every two years they seek re-election. With our Senators, it is more complicated, since their terms are for six years and in only 18 states have provisions to recall their Senators. Where does your state stand? Is it one of the 18 or not? If it is not take action ensure that your state will have the ability to recall your Senators.

It is time – it is past time – that we charge the State Legislatures with the task of legislating a procedure that enables us to recall our Senators. If our

Legislators cannot or will not do this they can be replaced in 2016.

I am fed up with the RINOs (Republican – In – Name – Only) that are holding positions in the House of Representatives and the Senate. So, as voters, review their past records and make certain that they are true conservatives before casting your vote for any one.

Today in a large part, many of our country’s problems stem from the people who are far too willing to take the words of liars or idiots or both; it is time for us to throw the liars and idiots out of office.

In all of my 89 years I have never seen so much apathy in the voters. It is as though they do not care about our country’s current condition and sad state of affairs. For the people who still love the USA, vote conservative and ensure the person you vote for is a true conservative.

PSG [ret] R. G. Smith

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Robert G. Smith

PLANNED CHAOS PART V, THE POLITICAL INSTITUTION


Founding Fathers Political Spectrum

The Leftist paradigm to reinvent America different from the intentions of America’s Founding Fathers:

 

The most effective weapons of assault are divide and conquer, and distraction. (From a Fix Bayonets post)

 

Danny Jeffrey has presented a brilliant post which he attributes as submitted by Dee Fatouros. The thing is this post has a lot of the flavor of Danny’s work so I am a bit uncertain if this is the entire work of Dee Fatouros or if Danny Jeffrey collaborated in the content. Frankly it is irrelevant if this post is collaborative or the work of a sole author. Although essay wise the wording may be lengthy, the journey is quite concise in its layout.

 

This essay is entitled “PLANNED CHAOS PART V, THE POLITICAL INSTITUTION”. I originally wrote that I haven’t examined or did a search on Fix Bayonets to see if parts one through four are. However in trying to checkout some info on Dee Fatouros I discover that Danny Jeffrey placed all parts on a Blogger page with a Fix Bayonets look: DeeFatourosWorkUpSite. In your own investigations of the potential collapse of the America we know, it might behoove you to find parts one through four in your own research.

 

The essay begins with the foundation of a great civics lesson on American politics from inception to the present. THEN the author (or authors) explains how the American Left with George Soros as the current Leftist puppeteer deceptive pulling the strings of politics and money to transform America to a member of global totalitarian One World Government under the paradigm of Leftist altruism that is absolutely void of real Liberty and independent entrepreneurship.

 

JRH 5/11/15

Please Support NCCR

******************************

PLANNED CHAOS PART V, THE POLITICAL INSTITUTION

 

Submitted By Dee Fatouros

May 11, 2015 6:39 AM

Fix Bayonets

 

Political Institutions:

Institutions that pertain to the governance of a society, its formal distribution of authority, its use of force, and its relationships to other societies and political units. The state, an important political institution in modern societies, is the apparatus of governance over a particular territory.

Here is a rundown of the various forms of government, with definitions provided by “The World Factbook.”

 

Absolute monarchy – a form of government where the monarch rules unhindered, i.e., without any laws, constitution or legally organized opposition.

 

Anarchy – a condition of lawlessness or political disorder brought about by the absence of governmental authority.

 

Authoritarian – a form of government in which state authority is imposed onto many aspects of citizens’ lives.

 

Commonwealth – a nation, state or other political entity founded on law and united by a compact of the people for the common good.

 

Communist – a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single — often authoritarian — party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society).

 

Confederacy (Confederation) – a union by compact or treaty between states, provinces or territories that creates a central government with limited powers; the constituent entities retain supreme authority over all matters except those delegated to the central government.

 

Constitutional – a government by or operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions and limits of that government.


Constitutional democracy – a form of government in which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution.


Constitutional monarchy – a system of government in which a monarch is guided by a constitution whereby his/her rights, duties, and responsibilities are spelled out in written law or by custom.


Democracy – a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.


Democratic republic – a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.


Dictatorship – a form of government in which a ruler or small clique wield absolute power (not restricted by a constitution or laws).


Ecclesiastical – a government administrated by a church.


Emirate – similar to a monarchy or sultanate, a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of an emir (the ruler of a Muslim state); the emir may be an absolute overlord or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.


Federal (Federation) – a form of government in which sovereign power is formally divided — usually by means of a constitution — between a central authority and a number of constituent regions (states, colonies or provinces) so that each region retains some management of its internal affairs; differs from a confederacy in that the central government exerts influence directly upon both individuals as well as upon the regional units.


Federal republic – a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.


Islamic republic – a particular form of government adopted by some Muslim states; although such a state is, in theory, a theocracy, it remains a republic, but its laws are required to be compatible with the laws of Islam.


Maoism – the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism developed in China by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), which states that a continuous revolution is necessary if the leaders of a communist state are to keep in touch with the people.


Marxism – the political, economic and social principles espoused by 19th century economist Karl Marx; he viewed the struggle of workers as a progression of historical forces that would proceed from a class struggle of the proletariat (workers) exploited by capitalists (business owners), to a socialist “dictatorship of the proletariat,” to, finally, a classless society — Communism.


Marxism-Leninism – an expanded form of communism developed by Vladimir Lenin from doctrines of Karl Marx; Lenin saw imperialism as the final stage of capitalism and shifted the focus of workers’ struggle from developed to underdeveloped countries.


Monarchy – a government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a monarch who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right; the monarch may be either a sole absolute ruler or a sovereign – such as a king, queen or prince – with constitutionally limited authority.


Oligarchy – a government in which control is exercised by a small group of individuals whose authority generally is based on wealth or power.


Parliamentary democracy – a political system in which the legislature (parliament) selects the government – a prime minister, premier or chancellor along with the cabinet ministers – according to party strength as expressed in elections; by this system, the government acquires a dual responsibility: to the people as well as to the parliament.


Parliamentary government (Cabinet-Parliamentary government) – a government in which members of an executive branch (the cabinet and its leader – a prime minister, premier or chancellor) are nominated to their positions by a legislature or parliament, and are directly responsible to it; this type of government can be dissolved at will by the parliament (legislature) by means of a no-confidence vote or the leader of the cabinet may dissolve the parliament if it can no longer function.


Parliamentary monarchy – a state headed by a monarch who is not actively involved in policy formation or implementation (i.e., the exercise of sovereign powers by a monarch in a ceremonial capacity); true governmental leadership is carried out by a cabinet and its head – a prime minister, premier or chancellor – who are drawn from a legislature (parliament).


Presidential – a system of government where the executive branch exists separately from a legislature (to which it is generally not accountable).


Republic – a representative democracy in which the people’s elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.


Socialism – a government in which the means of planning, producing and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite.


Sultanate – similar to a monarchy, a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of a sultan (the head of a Muslim state); the sultan may be an absolute ruler or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.


Theocracy – a form of government in which a Deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the Deity’s laws are interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities (bishops, mullahs, etc.); a government subject to religious authority.


Totalitarian – a government that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state by controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also the attitudes, values and beliefs of its population.

 

The excerpts from the following article are detailed at the end with a link, but they are all part of the same excellent overview.

A SHORT GUIDE TO THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM

 

The United States is – by size of electorate – the second largest democracy on the globe (India is the largest and Indonesia comes third) and the most powerful nation on earth, politically, economically and militarily, but its political system is in many important respects unlike any other in the world. This essay then was written originally to inform non-Americans as to how the American political system works.


What has been striking, however, is how many Americans – especially young Americans – have found the essay useful and insightful. There is considerable evidence that many Americans know and understand little about the political system of their own country – possibly more than is the case with any other developed democratic nation.

In the U.S., the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests what American students are learning. It has found that the two worst subjects for American students are civics and American history. One NAEP survey found that only 7% of eighth graders (children aged 13-14) could describe the three branches of government.

On a recent trip to the United States, I was eating cereal for breakfast and found that the whole of the reverse side of the cereal packet was devoted to a short explanation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the American government. I find it hard to imagine that many democratic nations would feel it necessary to explain such a subject in such a format.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:


To understand any country’s political system, it is helpful to know something of the history of the nation and the background to the creation of the (latest) constitution. But this is a fundamental necessity in the case of the American political system. This is because the Constitution of the United States is so different from those of other nations and because that Constitution is, in all material respects, the same document as it was over two centuries ago…

 


THE CONSTITUTION:


Unlike Britain but like most nation states, the American political system is clearly defined by basic documents. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the Constitution of 1789 form the foundations of the United States federal government. The Declaration of Independence establishes the United States as an independent political entity, while the Constitution creates the basic structure of the federal government…

Further information on the thinking expressed in the Constitution can be found in the Federalist Papers which are a series of 85 articles and essays published in 1787-1788 promoting the ratification of the Constitution…

THE PRESIDENCY:


What is the Presidency?


The President is the head of the executive branch of the federal government of the United States. He – so far, the position has always been held by a man – is both the head of state and the head of government, as well as the military commander-in-chief and chief diplomat. He presides over the executive branch of the government, a vast organisation numbering about four million people, including one million active-duty military personnel…

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:


What is the House of Representatives?


The House of Representatives is the lower chamber in the bicameral legislature known collectively as Congress. The founders of the United States intended the House to be the politically dominant entity in the federal system and, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the House served as the primary forum for political debate. However, subsequently the Senate has been the dominant body…

THE SENATE:


What is the Senate?


The Senate is the upper chamber in the bicameral legislature known collectively as Congress. The original intention of the authors of the US Constitution was that the Senate should be a regulatory group, less politically dominant than the House. However, since the mid-19th century, the Senate has been the dominant chamber and indeed today it is perhaps the most powerful upper house of any legislative body in the world…

THE SUPREME COURT:


What is the Supreme Court?


The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Originally it had five members but over time this number has increased. Since 1869, it has consisted of nine Justices: the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices. They have equal weight when voting on a case and the Chief Justice has no casting vote or power to instruct colleagues. Decisions are made by a simple majority.

Below the Supreme Court, there is a system of Courts of Appeal, and, below these courts, there are District Courts. Together, these three levels of courts represent the federal judicial system.

POLITICAL PARTIES & ELECTIONS:


To an extent quite extraordinary in democratic countries, the American political system is dominated by two political parties: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party (often known as the ‘Grand Old Party’ or GOP). These are very old and very stable parties – the Democrats go back to 1824 and the Republicans were founded in 1854.

In illustrations and promotional material, the Democratic Party is often represented as a donkey, while the Republican Party is featured as an elephant. The origin of these symbols is the political cartoonist Thomas Nast who came up with them in 1870 and 1874 respectively.

The main reason for the dominance of these two parties is that – like most other Anglo-Saxon countries (notably Britain) – the electoral system is ‘first past the post’ or simple majority which, combined with the large voter size of the constituencies in the House and (even more) the Senate, ensures that effectively only two parties can play. The other key factor is the huge influence of money in the American electoral system. Since effectively a candidate can spend any amount he can raise (not allowed in many other countries) and since one can buy broadcasting time (again not allowed in many countries), the US can only ‘afford’ two parties or, to put it another way, candidates of any other party face a formidable financial barrier to entry…

THE FEDERAL SYSTEM:

Understanding the federal nature of the United States is critical to appreciating the complexities of the American political system.


Most political systems are created top-down. A national system of government is constructed and a certain amount of power is released to lower levels of government.
The unique history of the United States means that, in this case, the political system was created bottom-up.

First, some 240 years ago, there were were 13 autonomous states who, following the War of Independence against the British, created a system of government in which the various states somewhat reluctantly ceded power to the federal government. Around a century later, the respective authority of the federal government and the individual states was an issue at the heart of the Civil War when there was a bloody conflict over who had the right to determine whether slavery was or was not permissible. With the exception of Switzerland, no other Western democracy diffuses power to the same degree as America.


So today the powers of the federal government remain strictly limited by the Constitution – the critical Tenth Amendment of 1791 – which leaves a great deal of authority to the individual states.



Each state has an executive, a legislature and a judiciary.


The head of the executive is the Governor who is directly elected.


The legislature consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives (the exception is the state of Nebraska which has a unicameral system).


The judiciary consists of a state system of courts.


The 50 states are divided into counties (parishes in Louisiana and boroughs in Alaska). Each county has its court.

Although the Constitution prescribes precisely when Presidential and Congressional elections will be held, the dates and times of state and local elections are determined by state governments. Therefore there is a plethora of elections in the United States and, at almost all times, an election is being held somewhere in the country. State and local elections, like federal elections, use the ‘first past the post’ system of election.



The debate about federalism in the US is far from over. There are those who argue for a stronger role for the federal government and there are advocates of locating more power at the state level.
The recent rise of the electorally-successful Tea Party movement owes a good deal to the view that the federal government has become too dominant, too intrusive and too profligate.

Meanwhile many states – especially those west of the Rockies – have what has been called “the fourth arm of government”: this is the ballot or referendum initiative. This enables a policy question to be put to the electorate as a result of the collection of a certain number of signatures or the decision of the state legislation. Over the last century, some 3,000 such initiatives have been conducted – in some cases (such as California) with profound results.

RECENT TRENDS:


In all political systems, there is a disconnect between the formal arrangements, as set out in the constitution and relevant laws, and the informal arrangements, as occurs in practice. Arguably, in the United States this disconnect is sharper than in most other democratic systems because:



The US Constitution is an old one (late 18th century) whereas most countries have had several constitutions with the current one typically being a 20th century creation.

The US Constitution is relatively immutable so it is very difficult to change the provisions to reflect the reforms that have come about over time from the pressure of events.

Since the US adopted its Constitution, the US has become the pre-eminent world economic and political power which has brought about major changes in how the Presidency operates, most especially in the international sphere.

What this means is that, in the last century and most especially since the end of the Second World War, the reality of how the American political system operates has changed quite fundamentally in terms which are not always evident from the terms of the Constitution (and indeed some might argue are in some respects in contravention of the Constitution). The main changes are as follows:

The balance of power between the Congress and the President has shifted significantly in favour of the President. This is evident in the domestic sphere through practices like ‘impoundment’ (when money is taken from the purpose intended by Congress and allocated to another purpose favoured by the President) and in the international sphere through refusal to invoke the War Powers Resolution in spite of major military invasions. Different terms for this accretion of power by the Presidency are “the unitary executive” and “the imperial presidency”.

The impact of private funding of political campaigns and of lobbyists and special interest groups in political decision making have increased considerably. Candidates raise their own money for campaigns, there is effectively no limit on the money that can be spent in such campaigns (thanks to what is called super Political Action Committees), and the levels of expenditure – especially in the presidential primaries and election proper – have risen astronomically… this has led to some observers describing the American political system as a plutocracy, since it is effectively controlled by private finance from big businesses, which expect certain policies and practices to follow from the candidates they are funding, and big donors, who often expect preferment such as an ambassadorship from a candidate elected as President.

There has been a growth of what is called “pork barrel” politics through the use of “earmarks”…  appropriations are achieved through “earmarks” which can be found both in legislation (also called “hard earmarks” or “hardmarks”) and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called “soft earmarks” or “softmarks”).


The nature of political debate in the United States has become markedly more partisan and bitter… US domestic politics has become polarized and tribal. As a result, the political culture is often more concerned with satisfying the demands of the political ‘base’ rather than attempting to achieve a national consensus.

One final trend worth noting is the frequency of the same family to provide members of Congress. Low polling in elections, the high cost of running for election, and the focus on the individual more than the party all mean that a well-known name can work successfully for a candidate. Everyone is familiar with the Kennedys, Clintons and Bushs in American politics but, in 2014, there are no less than 37 members of Congress who have a relative who has served in the legislature….continue.

Since 2004, a clear majority of Americans have told Gallup that they are dissatisfied with the way they are governed… This disillusionment is reflected in the falling number of Americans who even bother to vote….

The debate about the effectiveness of the US political system is a part of the wider debate about whether or not the United States is in relative decline on the world stage. In his book “Time To Start Thinking: America And The Spectre Of Decline” [for my review click here], Edward Luce writes: “Sometimes it seems Americans are engaged in some kind of collusion in which voters pretend to elect their lawmakers and lawmakers pretend to govern. This, in some ways, is America’s core problem: the more America postpones any coherent response to the onset of relative decline, the more difficult the politics are likely to get.”

To read the entire presentation, go here

 

Enter the primary enabler of the movement to accelerate destruction of the American ethos:

George Soros is one of the most malicious individuals on the face of planet Earth. He uses his immense fortune to undermine the political and financial systems of nations not only to line his pockets but to remake the world to his liking. He has used his wealth and influence to build a lethal network cloaked in social justice to fuel his agenda. Once America has been brought to its knees, nothing will stand in the way of the globalist agenda. His biography is far too lengthy to discuss in this writing, but go here to read much more.

 

From The Shadow Party And The Shadow Government

 

If George Soros were a lone billionaire, or if the Shadow Party consisted of a few disgruntled billionaires, these facts and achievements would not be so ominous. But the Shadow Party is far more than a reflection of the prejudices of one special interest or one passing generation. The Shadow Party has united the forces of the radical and “liberal” left while expelling moderates from the Democratic Party coalition. The Shadow Party is the current incarnation of a socialist movement that has been at war with the free market economy and the political system based on liberty and individual rights for more than two hundred years. It is a movement that has learned to conceal its ultimate goal, which is a totalitarian state, in the seductive rhetoric of “progressivism” and “social justice.” But its determination to equalize outcomes, its zeal for state power and for government control as the solution to social problems, and its antagonism to America as a defender of freedom are the tell-tale signs of a radical movement whose agenda is to change fundamentally and unalterably the way Americans have lived.  

 

For further detail on exactly how he and others have been working for decades to change the face of the American political system, go here and here. The information is both detailed and extensive in the links connected with this section, but well worth the time since they are an excellent illustration of the stealth attack on America. After reading the material, one will no longer need to ask, “How did we get here?”

The most effective weapons of assault are divide and conquer, and distraction.

The strategy of pitting various categories of the citizenry against each other is a most effective emotional technique. Minorities, women, and those comprising the LGBT aggregation are the favorite targets in the current attack in which to implant a narrative of discrimination and victimization by the created straw man of  a white, male dominated, capitalist America.

Take a grain of truth and build upon it until it becomes an an iron clad falsified structure with a siren call to the targeted groups. When such a dynamic is set into motion, it is nearly impossible to counter because currents of such beliefs often flicker below the surface and, in difficult times, can be easily ignited often leading to riots and violence between the different classes of victims as well as against the perceived enemy. The violence, if stoked long enough and hard enough by those seeking to destroy the system, could eventually lead to martial law and an outright totalitarian usurpation of governing power.

Such a takeover would be long and bloody and best avoided by the power masters. It would be far better and more easily managed if a state of collective anomie could be induced resulting in the despair of the national psyche leaving it vulnerable to such promises as “Hope And Change”, world peace (UN government), economic security (redistribution of wealth), a classless society where all are equal, (all are equally poor due to the elimination of entrepreneurship) and discrimination (free speech) is a crime.

The above is precisely what has been happening to America over past century via the gradual erosion of our major social institutions. The pillars of our culture have been infested with the corrosive elements of political mendacity as well as disinterest of the electorate, educationally induced intellectual laziness, spiritual rot, and the false promise of a benign central governmental structure that will do everything in its power to care for the cultivated dependence and/or the hedonism of its citizenry.

Total control by a world government has been inching along and is now going full throttle, unnoticed by the collective I.Q. due to decades of conditioning. Great civilizations have risen and fallen due to the ambitions of the ever increasing totalitarian, expansionist, and expensive tendencies of the governing power. The unawareness and often complicity of the citizenry contributed to the downward spirals because the governed were not fully attentive to the true meaning of the events unfolding before their eyes.

Between a sense of false victimization and bread and circuses lavished upon certain groups via the largess of the central government’s bleeding of the taxpayers, America will eventually collapse. The set up will then be complete for the UN to step in. A stifling darkness will descend upon humankind until the dormant embers of awareness, safely secured by their guardians, slowly become nascent and begin to glow once again. We must be those guardians and pass our precious treasure to future generations so that they will be ready to “Fix Bayonets” for the combat to come.

 

SHARE this essay…


This feature will allow you to share the above essay to your timeline, a friend’s timeline, a group, to a page you manage, or in a private message. It also allows you to leave a comment about the essay. If that comment is meant for me please use the comment section below.

Suggested Reading…

 

Planned Chaos–The Relentless Undermining Of Our Social Institutions Part One

Planned Chaos–The Relentless Undermining Of Our Social Institutions Part Two

Planned Chaos, Part III, The Attack On Our Religious Institutions

Planned Chaos Part IV, The Economy

The Captivity Of Illusion

_____________________________

Some see, few know, many choose to wander aimlessly in a fog, devoid of sunlight. I seek the light of day and leave the others to their chosen realm of ignorance. They are the ones who have brought this great nation down. I write only for the benefit of those who possess the courage required to restore our birthright. – Danny Jeffrey

 

VISIT FIX BAYONETS LIBRARY

 

Does American Deism Negate a Christian Heritage?


Posted by John R. Houk

© March 29, 2015

 

Comment dialogue between myself and Matthew Jeffero on the Facebook Group REPUBLICANS – CONSERVATIVES -TEA PARTY PATRIOTS- RIGHT WING AMERICANS to the SlantRight 2.0 post “Judeo-Christian Values are in U.S. Constitution”.

 

My central contention is even if the majority of the Founding Fathers were more Deist than Christian, American Deists swung toward Christian principles and Christian Morality as central to Constitutional governing. The Founding Fathers that were Deists were Critical of Christianity, yet they criticized as unbelievable the supernatural acts recorded in the Bible and NOT the standard of Moral living life in the Bible. Deist Christians felt the Catholic and Protestant Clergy had a history of hypocritical manipulation of the Christian laity which led to internecine wars between Christians when Christian principles would have solved or assuage conflict.

 

James Madison known as the Founder of the Constitution  

Sustain Govt by 10 Commandments - J. Madison 

As a Deist Madison was critical of Christianity being a part of the Federal government his quote in the picture demonstrates Christian Morality should be promoted.

 

 

The original post on SlantRight 2.0 was a Google+ dialogue between myself and Sifu about the God of Christianity being an influence on America’s Founding Fathers. Matthew’s stickling point is that the Founding Fathers were preeminently Deists hence it would be hogwash to believe America has Christian roots.

 

Matthew gets a little scruffy with me about his concept of Deism as opposed to my thoughts which claim American Deists (in the majority) were quite different than the European Deism influenced by the French Revolution. I contend that even if the majority of the Founding Fathers were Deists their mindset was still one that Christian morality and ethics is the foundation for good governance. Thus I answered Matthew’s snarky question, “Do I need to post a link of the definition of the word? Geez man, read a book,” with a lot of quotes from those who examine Christian/American Deism vs. French/European Deism.

 

Thomas Jefferson on the Moral Principles of Jesus

Jefferson- Moral Principles of Jesus

 

As a Deist Jefferson was critical of Christianity being a part of the Federal government his quote in the picture demonstrates Christian Morality should be promoted.

 

JRH 3/29/15

Please Support NCCR

****************************

 

Matthew Jeffero If you looked at most of the founding fathers they were deist. Pesty (I suspect Matthew means “pesky”) facts, kind of gets in the way. March 21 at 11:11am

 

John Houk Actually Matthew Most of the Founding Fathers were Christian Deists. Meaning they believed that Christian Morality makes for good government. This is unlike French influenced European Deists that tended more toward libertine atheism and an unnatural hatred for the Christian paradigm in any fashion. Those are the pesky facts. March 21 at 12:10pm

 

Benjamin Franklin on the Moral System of Jesus Christ

Franklin- Moral System of Jesus & Christianity best ever 

Reputed as a Deist Benjamin Franklin still believed the Moral system and the Faith of Christianity was the best the World had ever seen; thus it is the morality of Christianity that makes good people.

 

Matthew Jeffero Do you know deism is. Do I need to post a link of the definition of the word? Geez man, read a book. March 21 at 2:39pm

 

John Houk Okay Matthew here is something to read:

 

 

Two Paths for Deism:

 

 

What few people know is there are two deisms, the atheistic and religiously hostile deism of the French Revolution, and the more amicable deism of America and England. They posit two differing worldviews on issues of liberty and tolerance. English Deism and Freemasonry became the foundation of the American Revolution while the Enlightenment French Humanism became the basis of the bloody French Revolution and later Marxism and its offshoots.

 

 

What is called radical deism today is better called deistic Humanism. This is a philosophy, not a religion. We find at its head Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, the mass murderer Maximilian Robespierre, and the radical Jacobins. The Humanist French Revolution sought to destroy all traditional European institutions including Christianity, seeking to replace this with “enlightened” philosophy and reason as a basis for society. Oh yes, being led by ‘enlightened’ despots.

 

 

This radical deism did much to undermine revealed religions such as Christianity. The result has not been ‘enlightenment’ of the masses, but the rise irrationality and secular extremism. …

 

 

We can call it what we will be deistic Humanism, French deism, etc. it’s not a religion, but a secular philosophy. Voltaire had replaced the original understanding of God with Aristotle’s Prime Mover, which science has discredited today.

 

The French Revolution was based on reason alone and led to only bloodshed and tyranny. Reason without an underpinning of God or a higher power leads only to ruin. …

 

 

The Five Articles of Classical Deism

 

In England, Deism was critically concerned with the origins of religion, but positive in moral and religious affirmation. Early English Deists believed that the Bible contained important truths, but they rejected the concept that it was divinely inspired or inerrant. They were leaders in the study of the Bible as a historical (rather than an inspired, revealed) document. Lord Herbert of Cherbury (d. 1648) was one of the earliest proponents of Deism in England. In his book “De Veritate,” (1624), he described the “Five Articles” of English Deists:

 

[1] belief in the existence of a single supreme God

 
[2] humanity’s duty is to revere God

 
[3] linkage of worship with practical morality

 
[4] God will forgive us if we repent and abandon our sins

 
[5] good works will be rewarded (and punishment for evil) both in life and after death.

 

… (Dissecting Deism Past and Present; By Lewis Loflin; Sullivan.County.com)

 

++++++++++++++++++++

Christian deism

 

Christian deism, in the philosophy of religion, is a standpoint that branches from Christianity. It refers to a deist who believes in the moral teachings—but not divinity—of Jesus. Corbett and Corbett (1999) cite John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as exemplars.[1]

 

It adopts the ethics and non-mystical teachings of Jesus, while denying that Jesus was a deity. Scholars of the founding fathers of the United States “have tended to place the founders’ religion into one of three categories—non-Christian deism, Christian deism, and orthodox Christianity.”[8] John Locke and John Tillotson, especially, inspired Christian deism, through their respective writings.[9] Possibly the most famed person to hold this position was Thomas Jefferson, who praised “nature’s God” in the “Declaration of Independence” (1776) and edited the “Jefferson Bible“—a Bible with all reference to revelations and other miraculous interventions from a deity cut out.

 

 

Christian deists see no paradox in adopting the values and ideals espoused by Jesus without believing he was God. Without providing examples or citations, one author maintains, “A number of influential 17th- and 18th-century thinkers claimed for themselves the title of ‘Christian deist’ because they accepted both the Christian religion based on revelation and a deistic religion based on natural reason. This deistic religion was consistent with Christianity but independent of any revealed authority. Christian deists often accepted revelation because it could be made to accord with natural or rational religion.”[11]

 

… (Christian deism; Wikipedia; This page was last modified on 4 December 2014, at 12:03)

 

++++++++++++++++++

“Christian Deism is a natural religion that maintains a firm belief in God the Creator; and strives to follow the natural commandments of God, as taught by one of the greatest teachers of natural religion, Jesus of Nazareth.” (WHAT IS CHRISTIAN DEISM? Christian Deism; © Copyright 2015 – Christian Deism)

 

+++++++++++++++++++++

Also Read:

 

Christian Deism; Enlightenment Deism.

 

Religion and Government, Are We a Christian Nation? By BILL BAILEY; TheFederalistPaper.org)

 

March 28, 2015 5:31pm

 

John Adams: Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.

Adams on Constitution - Made for Christian Moral People

 

John Adams as the second President of the United States of America was definitely closer to traditional Christianity than many of the other Founders.

 

George Washington: “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

G. Washington- Rightly Govern ONLY with God & Bible

______________________________

The Founding Father photos with quotes followed by my micro-comment were not a part of the original comment left on the Facebook comment posts left on the group REPUBLICANS – CONSERVATIVES -TEA PARTY PATRIOTS- RIGHT WING AMERICANS. Minor editing work with good old fashioned spellcheck. No slight is meant to Matthew. Comments are typically something written on the fly and misspellings, grammatical errors and so on happen to all of us making comments.

 

Constitution, Judicial Tyranny and a Moral Society


James Madison on Tyranny

John R. Houk

© November 14, 2014

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Bold text mine – Amendment I from Legal Information Institute of Cornel University Law School)

 

The controversy here is Original Intent vs. Living Constitution. Conservative prefer to err on the side of Original Intent while America’s Leftists prefer to err on the side of a Living Constitution.

 

Original Intent:

 

The theory of interpretation by which judges attempt to ascertain the meaning of a particular provision of a state or federal constitution by determining how the provision was understood at the time it was drafted and ratified.

 

Sometime called original understanding, originalism, or intentionalism, the theory of original intent is applied by judges when they are asked to exercise the power of Judicial Review during a legal proceeding. (The power of Judicial review is the power of state and federal courts to review and invalidate laws that have been passed by legislative and executive branches of government but violate a constitutional principle.)

 

Not every judge adheres to the theory of original intent, and many adherents fail to apply it in a uniform and faithful manner. Judges who attempt to apply this judicial philosophy generally agree that only through its application may courts be bound by the law and not their own views of what is desirable. They also generally agree that courts must apply original intent in order to preserve the representative democracy created by the federal Constitution.

 

Originalists observe that the democracy created by the U. S. Constitution is marked by three essential features: : a Separation of Powers, Federalism, and a Bill of Rights. The Constitution separates the powers of the federal government into three branches, which help foster what is known as a system of checks and … (Original Intent; The Free Dictionary)

 

… The phrase original intent usually means the subjective opinion of those who wrote the Constitution as to what a particular provision was supposed to communicate. Original intent also is called the intent of the Framers. Researchers try to deduce the original intent by examining both direct evidence (what the 55 drafters said during the Constitutional Convention), and indirect or circumstantial evidence. Examples of the latter include, among other things, what people said about the instrument during the ratification debates, the meaning of key words in common discourse and in contemporaneous dictionaries, and their meaning in legal and literary sources.

 

 

The original meaning (or original public meaning) is how a reasonably intelligent, involved member of the public would have interpreted a provision. Primary evidence of original meaning is how words were used in common discourse and the definitions in contemporaneous dictionaries and legal sources. Circumstantial evidence includes the drafting and ratification conventions, public debates, and so forth.

 

Obviously, the evidence used in prove each of the three concepts overlaps. In practice, moreover, the original intent of a provision is usually the same as the original understanding or original meaning.

 

In the event of a conflict between intent, understanding and meaning, which should control?

 

The key to answering that question is to answer another: “When the Constitution was adopted, what was its legal force? In other words, how would the courts of the time have interpreted it?

 

The Constitution is, of course, a legal document, so you can find the correct response to this question by investigating how judges, and other lawyers and public officials interpreted legal documents of the same general kind during the Founding Era. …

 

 

Thus, the original legal force of the Constitution—as it would have been applied by Founding-Era judges, lawyers, and officials—is based on the original understanding; if this is not recoverable, then you apply the original meaning. Original intent is useful only insofar as it tends to prove understanding or meaning. (Original Intent, Original Understanding, Original Meaning; By Rob Natelson; Tenth Amendment Center; 5/21/12)

 

Law School claims to teach Constitutional Law, but the Constitution is never opened. The entire concept of Constitutional Law in Law School is based on Case Law. The original writings, the original language, and the original intent of the U.S. Constitution is not even considered.

 

Those who wished to subvert the Constitution from the very beginning worked to use the courts, and “implied law,” to disarm the Constitution, so as to allow the federal government a greater opportunity to grow beyond the limitations placed on it by the specific language of the Constitution.

 

 

Along with studying the histories of Rome, Greece and Slovenia as examples of past republics, the primary research by the Founding Fathers was from their own Mother Country, England. The Anglo-Saxons provided the principles the founders needed to establish a lasting system of freedom, and liberty. They also recognized how easily statists could use the courts, or the living and breathing concept of Common Law, to change the Constitution, so the founders put into the Constitution strict standards, and a limited means for changing the Law of the Land (through amendments), while also making the Judicial Branch the weakest of the three branches of government.

 

 

Judicial Review allows the courts to review the law and determine if it is a just law, or even if it is a constitutional law. This is a commonly accepted concept, and it flies in the face of the original intent of the Founding Fathers, who wanted the States to be the final arbiters of the Constitution – not the courts.

 

… Judicial Review is indeed a sinister power for the courts to have. For the federal courts to decide if a law is constitutional is for the federal government to determine its own authorities. That, my friends, is hardly in line with the idea of limited government as originally prescribed by the founders.

 

The courts, through case law, have acted as an agent for the forces that are determined to bring down our system, and change it into a tyranny. Those who have bought into the case law myth, as has our female lawyer twitter friend of my friend, are accomplices in the effort to bring down our system of liberty, and limited government.

 

The damage is widespread, and the statist opinions are entrenched in our system.

 

READ ENTIRETY (U.S. Constitution, Original Intent; By DOUGLAS GIBBS; Conservative Action Alerts; 8/15/13)

 

See the CATO Institute’s panel discussion video “Originalism and the Good Constitution” in which the authors of said book (John O. McGinnis) are also member.

 

Living Constitution:

 

Living Constitution is a term used to describe the Constitution’s ability to change to meet the needs of each generation without major changes. This is a concept used in interpreting the Constitution of U.S. It is based on the notion that Constitution of the United States has relevant meaning beyond the original text and is an evolving and dynamic document that changes over time. Therefore the views of contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.

 

There are many views for and against the theory of Living Constitution. The pragmatist view contends … (Living Constitution Law & Legal Definition; USLegal.com)

 

 

 

… Mr. Obama found himself engaged in a subject that stirs up his leftwing passions. Below are some of his bombshell comments (emphasis added):

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.  And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.  It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and [sic] Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

That straightforward excerpt provides a clear window into the constitutional philosophy of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. As radical as “people tried to characterize” the Warren Court, Mr. Obama hints that the Constitution may be interpreted even more radically: in a way which would give the federal government power to tell the people what the feds (and states) must do on their behalf.

 

… Mr. Obama believes he can “break free” from the additional “constraints” placed in the Constitution by the founders. Toward that end, Mr. Obama’s nominees to the federal judiciary share his leftist worldview. From his “wise Latina” and “gay rumor” appointments to the Supreme Court, to his legion of federal appellate and district court nominees, the common denominator is the idea of appointing high-ranking judges who see the Constitution as a “living document.”

In President Obama’s words from The Audacity of Hope, the Constitution “is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”

 

In his co-authored book, Keeping Faith with the Constitution, Liu, in Obamian fashion, posits a new method of interpretation: constitutional fidelity. “Fidelity” has a nice ring to it, but unfortunately, “what we mean by fidelity,” clarifies Liu, “is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation.”

 

In other words, Liu is a “living Constitution” theorist who, like Obama, uses conservative-sounding words to support his radical positions. A Constitution that is interpreted by a few robe-wearing elitists “in a way that adapts its principles” is effectively no Constitution at all.

 

After many decades of “living Constitution” interpretation, the people have READ ENTIRETY (A Clear Danger: Obama, a ‘Living Constitution,’ and ‘Positive Rights’; By Monte Kuligowski; American Thinker; 10/2/10)

 

In the Original Intent vs. Living Constitution debate is the issue of the folly known as Separation of Church and State; thus Leftists have brainwashed Americans to accept Judicial tyranny to mold the public question: Is allowing religion on tax supported institutions and/or property a government endorsement of religious faith?

 

If the courts were only allowed to use Originalism to validate or invalidate non-Amendment laws (legislative or executive regulations), the issue of Religion influencing government BUT NOT government influencing religion or religious practice would be understood as the intent of the Founding Fathers.

 

In effect American Leftists and atheists have managed to transform the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government into the very tyranny that was intended to be avoided.

 

Alexander Hamilton in authoring Federalist #78 spells out the constitutional powers attributed to the Judicial Branch of government:

 

…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. [Emphasis added (by Faith and the Law blog).]

 

 

During the past 60 years, many federal judges (followed closely by their state counterparts) have gradually strayed from the constitutional role of interpreting the law – providing “judgment,” to use Hamilton’s word – to actively legislating from the bench, especially in controversial areas of social policy. In other words, activist judges at the federal and state level have abandoned the Founders’ understanding of the constitutionally limited judicial function and have usurped the legislative function (without admitting it, of course) in order to impose a radically liberal vision for America. That vision includes such things as creating previously unknown constitutional “rights” to abortion and same-sex marriage, for example.

 

Since federal judges are appointed for life, their lack of accountability to the democratic will of the people makes such judicial activism especially dangerous. Hamilton argued in Federalist #78 that the Constitution’s “good behavior” qualification on judges’ lifetime appointments would suffice to keep them in line, but in practice it has not been used to rein in activist judges. It is ironic that the Founders proposed lifetime appointments for federal judges because they most feared overreaching by the legislative branch, while considering the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch.

 

 

For judges to effectively bypass that procedure by creating new constitutional “rights” out of whole cloth is at once unconstitutional and anti-democratic. A “living Constitution” philosophy is nothing less than an excuse for activist judges to impose their personal preferences upon an unwilling citizenry in the name of “evolving standards,” which they alone are entitled to discern.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Judicial Philosophy of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution; posted at and by faithandthelaw; 5/11/10 – Derived from Focus on the Family, the updated link there: Judicial Philosophy Series)

 

The point I am attempting to drive home here is that Judicial Tyranny has usurped the Original Intent of the design of the Founding Fathers. In the realm of religion and politics Judicial Tyranny has become the despotic tool of America’s Left to transform America away from Christian morals. The Left has a vision of society/culture mirroring morality as dictated by a like-minded elitist few that feels people are not capable of leading a life that benefits what is good for humankind.

 

Founding Fathers viewed this mentality as statist tyranny; hence the common language in matters of dissolving any union with the British Crown and forming a rule of law under the authority of We The People constantly alluded to God’s superiority as the measuring stick for the morals of a good and effective government.

 

Leftists mindful of a societal paradigm shift realized the best way for people to depend morals established for the good of society rather than defined by the Creator of all that exists is to discredit the efficacy of the Judeo-Christian paradigm Western Society is based upon. ERGO Judicial Tyranny has step by step dissolved any effect Christian morals and culture has on government.

 

This whole exercise in a brief examination on the distortion of America’s Constitution at the hands of an activist-tyrannical judiciary is due to an excellent essay by Michelle Malkin about the systematic exercise of godlessness in America can be demonstrated in violent and inherent moral selfishness flowing from younger generations in America. Without a Christian infusion being allowed back into our culture without a tyrannical judiciary’s countermanding, this moral selfishness will be the moral fiber of America’s future.

 

JRH 11/14/14

Please Support NCCR

**************************

One Nation Under Godlessness

 

By Michelle Malkin

November 14, 2014

Townhall.com

 

Cheating. Bullying. Cybersexting. Hazing. Molestation. Suicide. Drug abuse. Murder. Scanning the headlines of the latest scandals in America’s schools, it’s quite clear that the problem is not that there’s too much God in students’ lives.

 

The problem is that there isn’t nearly enough of Him.

 

With the malfunction of moral seatbelts and the erosion of moral guardrails, too many kids have turned to a pantheon of false gods, crutches and palliatives. They’re obsessed with “Slender Man” and “Vampire Diaries.” Alex from Target’s hair and Rihanna’s tattoos. Overpriced basketball sneakers and underdressed reality stars. Choking games and YouTube games. Gossip and hookups. Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat.

 

It’s all about selfies over self-control, blurred lines over bright lines.

 

In a metastatic youth culture of soullessness and rootlessness, the idea of high school teens voluntarily using their free time to pray and sing hymns is not just a breath of fresh air. It’s salvation.

 

But leave it to secularists run amok to punish faithful young followers of Christ.

 

Last week, the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a religious freedom lawsuit against Pine Creek High School here in my adopted hometown of Colorado Springs. Chase Windebank, a senior at the District 20 school, had been convening an informal prayer group for the past three years “in a quiet area to sing Christian religious songs, pray, and to discuss issues of the day from a religious perspective.”

 

Windebank and his friends weren’t disrupting classroom time. They shared their Christian faith during an open period earned by high-achieving students. Other kids used the time to play on their phones, eat snacks, get fresh air outside, or schedule meetings for a wide variety of both official and unofficial school clubs.

 

A Pine Creek choir teacher had given permission to Windebank and his fellow worshipers to meet in an empty music practice room. No complaints ever ensued from other students or faculty. For three years, the group encountered no problems, according to ADF’s complaint. But in late September, Windebank was summoned to the assistant principal’s office and ordered to stop praying because of “the separation of church and state.”

 

The school singled out the young man of faith’s harmless activities and banned members of his group from discussing current issues of the day from a religious perspective during an open period in an unobtrusive meeting place.

 

As Todd Starnes of Fox News, who broke the story of the lawsuit last week, lamented: “Public school administrators and their lawyers have succeeded in suppressing and oppressing the Christian voice at Pine Creek High School.”

 

It defies common sense that in conservative-leaning Colorado Springs, home to a vibrant faith community and leading evangelical organizations, students would be reprimanded and deprived of basic constitutional rights. As a letter from local parents to the school district decried: “To what benefit does it serve a school to limit the ability for a student to pray with their friends, fellowship with their friends, or discuss daily events from a Christian perspective? It is obvious that School District 20 is taking a freedom FROM religion perspective, not a freedom OF religion perspective.”

 

Think about it: If the high-schoolers gathered in the cafeteria to listen to Billboard magazine’s No. 1 pop hit “Habits (Stay High)” — “You’re gone and I gotta stay high/ all the time/ to keep you off my mind” — school officials would have no issue.

 

If they lounged in a courtyard to joke about the latest girl-fight videos or off-color joke memes posted on Vine, no problem.

 

If they discussed the latest “Walking Dead” episode or napped in the library? All good.

 

But singing “Amazing Grace” and studying scripture? This subversion must be stopped!

 

How did we get here? And in Colorado Springs, of all places — not Berkeley or Boulder or Boston? Blame cowardice, ignorance and politically correct bureaucrats pledging allegiance to one nation, under godlessness, without religious liberty, and the occult of extreme secularism for all.

________________________

Constitution, Judicial Tyranny and a Moral Society

John R. Houk

© November 14, 2014

_______________________

One Nation Under Godlessness

 

Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2010).

 

Copyright © Townhall.com. All Rights Reserved.

 

Townhall.com About Page

 

Townhall.com is the #1 conservative website. Townhall.com pulls together political commentary and analysis from over 100 leading columnists and opinion leaders, research from 100 partner organizations, conservative talk-radio and a community of millions of grassroots conservatives.

 

Townhall.com is designed to amplify those conservative voices in America’s political debates.

 

By uniting the nations’ top conservative radio hosts with their millions of listeners, Townhall.com breaks down the barriers between news and opinion, journalism and political participation — and enables conservatives to participate in the political process with unprecedented ease.

 

As a part of Salem Communications Corporation, Townhall.com features READ THE REST

 

Independence Day [Message]


T Jefferson statue next to Decl of Independence

I subscribe to the online periodical The Patriot Post. It’s free and so far totally independent of advertisements and totally dependent on the gracious support of free will donations. Thus before I go further I highly encourage you to send some money to keep the fount of Patriotism operating as a source of Conservative Liberty and a promoter of the ideals of America’s Founding Fathers.

 

Since I am on The Patriot Post email list every year around Independence Day I get an email that links to an Independence Day message. I am fairly certain that oft times it is the same message because it is so well written and is quite timelessly relevant. I may have even cross posted it more than once. Guess what, I am doing it again – today.

 

JRH 7/4/14

Please Support NCCR

*******************************************

Independence Day

The Patriot Post

 

“God who gave us life gave us Liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.” –Thomas Jefferson (1774)

 

Amid all the contemporary political and cultural contests, too many conservatives fail to make the case for overarching eternal truths — whether in debate with adversaries across the aisles of Congress, or with neighbors across Main Street.

 

Lost in the din is the foundational endowment of Essential Liberty, and any debate that does not begin with this eternal truth will end with temporary deceits.

 

The most oft-cited words from our Declaration of Independence are these: “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.”

 

The eternal assertion that Liberty for all people is “endowed by their Creator” and is thus “unalienable” should require no defense, because “we hold these truths to be self-evident,” and because the rights of man are irrevocable from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

 

But the root of all debate between Liberty and tyranny — or, in political parlance, between Right and left — is the contest to assert who endows Liberty — God or man.

 

Contemporary Leftist protagonists seek to replace Rule of Law with the rule of men. This is because the former is predicated on the principle that Liberty is “endowed by our Creator,” while the latter asserts that government is the giver of Liberty.

 

The history of man, since its first record, has repeatedly and tragically documented that when the people settle for the assertion that government is the source of their rights, tyranny is the inevitable result. And tyrants always attempt to undermine Liberty by driving a wedge between it and its foundational endowment by our Creator.

 

For generations, American liberals have driven that wedge by asserting that our Constitution provides a “wall of separation” between church and state. But does it?

 

 

The short answer is “yes,” but it is most certainly not the faux wall constructed by judicial activists, who have grossly adulterated the plain language of our First Amendment especially during the last 50 years.

 

Contrary to what many liberals would have us believe, the words “wall of separation between church and state” do not appear in our Constitution — nor is this notion even implied. Thomas Jefferson penned those words in an obscure 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in response to concerns about Connecticut’s establishment of Congregationalism as their state church. Jefferson assuaged their concerns, telling the Baptists that the First Amendment prohibited the national government from establishing a “national church,” but he concluded rightly that the Constitution prohibited the national government from interfering with the matters of state governments — a “wall of separation,” if you will, between federal and state governments.

 

The “wall of separation” argument is thus a phony one. Indeed, it is a blueprint for tyranny.

 

We are created, from the beginning, in the Image of God, and that image is the essence of Liberty, the well of all rights for all people for all time.

 

Our enlightened Founders, in their revolutionary opposition to tyranny, looked far beyond kings and parliaments to the enduring source of the rights of man, and they enumerated in our Declaration of Independence that we are, indeed, created in God’s Image for His purpose, and that no man could strip that endowment from the soul of another. Thus, we have the equal capacity to be free, personal, rational, creative and moral beings, and we are entitled to be so through His endowment.

 

These rights and freedoms were further enshrined in our Constitution.

 

In 1776, John Hancock wrote of Jacob Duché, the first Chaplain appointed by the Continental Congress, “Congress … from a consideration of your … zealous attachment to the rights of America, appoint(s) you their Chaplain.” Duché, Pastor of Philadelphia’s Christ Church, captured the spirit of the American Revolution, saying, “Civil liberty is as much the gift of God in Christ Jesus … as our spiritual freedom… ‘Standing fast’ in that liberty, wherewith Christ, as the great providential Governor of the world, hath made us free.”

 

It is in that spirit that we at The Patriot Post adopted our motto, Veritas vos Liberabit — “The Truth Will Set You Free” (John 8:32). That is the essence of the assertion that we are “endowed by our Creator” with life and Liberty.

 

Ignorance of the true and eternal source of the rights of man is fertile ground for the Left’s assertion that government endows such rights. It is also perilous ground, soaked with the blood of generations of American Patriots. As Jefferson wrote, “The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

 

Indeed, the “Cycle of Democracy” demands this tonic. And despite the pervasive assault on Liberty by the current legions of Leftist NeoComs, to paraphrase the great Prussian military historian, theorist and tactician Carl von Clausewitz, “the best defense is a good offense.”

 

Our Founders closed their Declaration with this pledge to each other, and all who would follow: “With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

 

In his 1800 letter to fellow Declaration signer Benjamin Rush, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

 

Like millions of our generation’s American Patriots, I have sworn likewise. We must never forsake our Sacred Honor.

 

No matter what setbacks we face, Liberty is an eternal endowment. Thus, we must hold the lines on defense, and regroup for relentless attack on offense.

 

Never lose faith, fellow Patriots!

 

In honor of this anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, contemplate these wise words of our Founders, and please consider supporting The Patriot Post’s mission in defense of Liberty.

 

Signing Decl. of Independence

 

“While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion. To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian.” –George Washington

 

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” –John Adams

 

“May every citizen … have a proper sense of the Deity upon his mind and an impression of the declaration recorded in the Bible, ‘Him that honoreth Me I will honor, but he that despiseth Me shall be lightly esteemed.'” –Samuel Adams

 

“This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.” –Benjamin Franklin

 

“The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it.” –James Madison

 

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among parchments and musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” –Alexander Hamilton

 

“But where says some is the king of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. … [L]et it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.” –Thomas Paine in Common Sense

_________________________________

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2014 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

 

Your Patriot Post team of editors and staff depend entirely on the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising. Thank you for standing with us!