Liberty, Endowed by Our Creator and Assured by the Second Amendment


The Patriot Post is one of my favorite online journals. Its founder and Executive Editor Mark Alexander, attended the Annual NRA meeting in Atlanta, GA. (4/27-30/17)

 

Alexander gives a pep talk on Second Amendment Rights, some NRA tidbits and the highlight of the evening – President Donald Trump’s speech. I will provide the NRA video embed beneath Mark Alexander’s post.

 

JRH 5/6/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Liberty, Endowed by Our Creator and Assured by the Second Amendment

 

The eight-year assault on your Second Amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end.” —Donald Trump

 

By Mark Alexander

May 3, 2017

The Patriot Post

 

“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, more insurmountable than any—James Madison (1788)

 

 

NRA Atlanta

 

I don’t often escape our publishing deadlines, but I managed to slip out of town last Wednesday for five days to meet up with 100,000 of my best friends — friends of Liberty. It was my annual trek to the Leadership Conference of the National Rifle Association, this year held in Atlanta.

 

 

As has been the case with every city hosting the NRA’s annual meeting, the concentration of guns on the streets of Atlanta last weekend went up 100-fold — and crime went down accordingly. If you read no further, read this: In the inimitable words of economist and former Yale researcher John Lott, “More Guns, Less Crime.”

 

Atlanta had no so-called gun-free zones last weekend. The town was teeming with firearms, including CNN Center, where some of the NRA events were held. (Memo to Ted Turner: It’s always great to carry concealed at CNN!) As National Review editor Jim Geraghty noted prior to the convention, despite the howls from “gun control” cupcakes, “Not only has there never been a shooting at an NRA Annual Meeting, crime in the city usually goes down during that weekend. (If you were a mugger, would you try robbing NRA convention attendees?)”

 

Indeed, street thugs might be dumb, but they aren’t stupid!

Of course, most of my colleagues understand that “gun control” actually means a tight pattern at 1,000 meters!

 

Notably, while we were convening, The Washington Times cited a study finding that the majority of homicides nationwide occur in only 5% of the nation’s counties, those urban poverty plantations where millions of impoverished Americans live under the thumb of their Democrat Party masters. It’s also notable that most of those urban centers have the most restrictive gun regulations in the nation — if only those pesky criminals would obey the law.

 

Patriots, here’s what the gun-confiscating Democrats and their Leftmedia dezinformatsiya propagandists don’t want you to know: If you’re not involved with drugs or gangs, the probability that you’ll be the victim of violent crime drops to the same levels as those in Western European nations with the most restrictive gun regulations in the world.

 

So why are the statists constantly endeavoring to infringe on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”? Because the first and last defense “necessary to the security of a free state” is that which is affirmed by our Constitution’s Second Amendment. And because your right to keep and bear arms encompasses your right to defend yourself against the tyranny of the state.

 

As I have often written, Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by our Constitution’s author, James Madison, wrote in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (1833), “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

 

Which brings me back to the NRA and its noble mission.

 

While the NRA was founded in 1871 to promote marksmanship, its mission has shifted in recent decades as the right of the people to keep and bear arms has come under relentless assault by statist leftists, particularly those in the judicial branch. As summarized from its bylaws today, “The purposes and objectives of the National Rifle Association of America are: 1. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use arms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens…”

 

That mission is inspired by the timeless wisdom of our “Founders on Firearms and Freedom,” undergirded by the unalienable rights of all people to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and best assured by the palladium of all rights outlined in the Second Amendment of our Constitution. Today, the NRA and its five million members are devoted, first and foremost, to that core mission.

 

To Support & Defend (Constitution)

 

It would be difficult to settle on a single highlight of the five days I spent in Atlanta.

 

One was stepping onto an elevator and running into my friend, Medal of Honor recipient Sammy Lee Davis, and his lovely wife Dixie. Another was being joined in the festivities by my daughter, who graduates from college next week (and has a job!). Yet another would be reconnecting with my East Tennessee friend Gary Harrell, who’s now retired as commanding general of Delta Force. Gary is probably best known as commander of our forces in Mogadishu in 1993 during the bloody “Black Hawk Down” battle, in which our warriors were hamstrung by restrictive rules of engagement under former President Bill Clinton.

 

There were other friends — Ronnie Barrett, founder of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing and maker of one of the best long-shooter military rifles in history, the M107 .50 BMG, the military version of the M82A1. (As it happens, the M107 has been my personal favorite since I first experienced its recoil “nudge” 10 years ago.) It is always a treat to be with Ronnie, and especially his chief administrator (wife), Donna.

 

I rarely miss an opportunity to talk to strangers, anywhere and everywhere. Outside the NRA venues, while in constant transit around town, whether on the MARTA underground train platform with a group of young law students, or visiting with street vendors, or stuck in traffic with Uber drivers, I didn’t run into anyone who had a negative view of the NRA or our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Frankly, I think there were a lot of people in Atlanta last weekend who felt much safer than they usually do.

 

Most of the NRA members would likely say the highlight of their week was the address by President Donald Trump, the first sitting commander in chief to keynote an NRA event since Ronald Reagan in 1983. Of course, President Reagan’s remarks resonate as if they were spoken just yesterday.

 

Ahead of President Trump’s remarks, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre set the tone: “It’s up to us to speak up against the three most dangerous voices in America: academic elites, political elites, and media elites. These are America’s greatest domestic threats.”

 

For his part, Donald Trump was on target with every word, and his remarks could be summed up in a single line: “The eight-year assault on your Second Amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end.” (Watch his speech.)

 

Fact is, the NRA was instrumental in the election of Donald Trump, and it endorsed his candidacy early in the campaign. Despite my own concerns about Trump at the time of that endorsement last May, as I’ve written repeatedly, Trump’s appointments are as conservative as those of President Reagan in his first administration, and despite all the 100-day hand-wringers, Donald Trump has accomplished more than a few things. Most notably, he delivered on his biggest commitment when he selected Neil Gorsuch to fill the pivotal Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia.

 

I salute NRA National Chairman Allan Cors, who was characteristically humble about the NRA’s considerable victories during the last two years under his leadership. (Watch his speech.)

 

My tour in Atlanta ended with yet another Tennessee friend, Joe Gregory, who has devoted much of his adult life to the preservation of Liberty and extending that blessing to the next generation.

 

Joe Gregory – Let Freedom Ring (kids)

 

Joe is a charter member and chairman of the NRA’s Golden Ring of Freedom, and in that capacity, he hosts a great event — inviting young Patriots on the convention floor to ring a large reproduction Liberty Bell. He notes, “I do this because I believe what Ronald Reagan said about Freedom: ‘Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same…’”

 

The historic Liberty Bell rang above the Pennsylvania State House (now Independence Hall) after the first public reading of the Declaration of Independence on July 8th, 1776.

 

Joe notes that the inscription on the Liberty Bell is, “Proclaim LIBERTY Throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants Thereof” (Leviticus 25:10), and in keeping with the spirit of that passage, he asks each of the young people to introduce themselves and shout out, “Let Freedom Ring!” The bell can be heard throughout the convention halls.

 

Joe also hosted an outstanding prayer breakfast Sunday morning, featuring a keynote from Allen West, who also delivered an address the previous day.

 

Allen’s focus was, “Make Ready Men and Women of Christ,” basing his remarks on Jeremiah 1:17: “Therefore prepare yourself and arise…” Allen, who is from Atlanta (though gets credit for being a University of Tennessee graduate), told me, “There is a fitting parallel between the minutemen of Lexington and Concord making ready the path for our Liberty on earth, and Jesus Christ, who made ready the path for our eternal spiritual Liberty.”

 

And a final note: As it does our soul good to be in faith fellowship with others, it is likewise, good for us to be in Patriot fellowship with others. I encourage both forms of fellowship with Patriots whenever possible!

 

Footnote: You can view all the speakers and proceedings here or on the NRA YouTube Channel. You can also view NRA advertising clips here. Finally, in advance of the Trump administration’s push for national right-to-carry reciprocity, the NRA announced a new insurance program for gun owners. You can find out more about that here.

 

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

 

+++

NRA VIDEO: President Trump Speech NRA in Atlanta – 2017 NRA-ILA Leadership Forum

YOUTUBE VERSION

__________________

Copyright © 2017 The Patriot Post.

 

Support The Patriot Post – Extend Liberty to the Next Generation

 

About Mark M. Alexander

 

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 elementary school afternoons were spent sorting and delivering groceries for a local produce store, and summers mowing lawns. At age 13, he became his community’s youngest volunteer firefighter, and completed EMT training at 16. In high school, he learned about publishing as a print-shop apprentice for a manufacturing plant. At age 19, he completed certification from a state police academy and worked four years as a uniformed patrolman while completing his undergraduate degree.

 

Alexander’s heritage is Scots-Irish, but he objects to “hyphenated Americanism.” His is among the “First Families” of Tennessee, having settled in East Tennessee prior to statehood (1796). He is the product of a proud military legacy, including READ THE REST

 


About The Patriot Post

 

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

 

Mission

We launched The Patriot Post online in 1996, with sage advice from conservative protagonists William F. Buckley (National Review, Emeritus), Ed Feulner (Heritage Foundation, Emeritus) and our National Advisory Committee.

 

Now, the oldest news, policy and opinion digest on the Web, The Patriot remains steadfast in our mission to extend Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.

 

 

Thanks to our fellow Patriots across the nation, and our devoted team of editors, technical and creative staff, and support personnel, The Patriot Post has grown from its humble beginnings into a highly acclaimed touchstone of Liberty for conservative leaders across our nation, and the leading online resource for First Principles.

 

Our objective is to READ ENTIRETY

 

The Faking News Fakers: ‘Wiretaps? What Wiretaps?’


Every day I try to move awake from Fake News Conspiracies and Obama’s Deep State outrages, THEN I run across another news story that simply brings my blood pressure to a boiling point.

 

I propose to aggregate some of these news tidbits I consider to be acts of treason.

 

I will begin with a stand-alone cross post from Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post looking at the hypocrisy of the Leftist MSM in posting news that fingers a wiretap against Trump YET denies that President Trump has any proof of being wiretapped.

JRH 3/8/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The Faking News Fakers: ‘Wiretaps? What Wiretaps?’

The Trump/Putin myth — delegitimizing Trump’s election to keep the administration off-balance and derail his agenda.

 

By Mark Alexander 

Mar. 8, 2017

Email Update Sent 3/8/2017 1:07 PM

The Patriot Post

 

“But the fact being once established, that the press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood, I leave to others to restore it to its strength, by recalling it within the pale of truth. Within that, it is a noble institution, equally the friend of science and of civil liberty.” —Thomas Jefferson

 

NYT on Wiretapping & Fake News Denial

 

Despite all the fake media hysterics, keeping the “Trump and Putin rigged the election” myth alive has nothing to do with facts. But it has everything to do with delegitimizing Trump’s stunning victory, keeping his administration off-balance and derailing his agenda.

 

As usual, leftists and their media sycophants never let facts get in the way of a political hatchet job.

 

Last weekend, Donald Trump tweeted a sensational claim — that the Obama administration tapped his phones during the 2016 presidential campaign between Trump and BO’s corrupt heir-apparent, Hillary Clinton. The Democrats’ public relations department, a.k.a. the mainstream media, responded with howls that there was no evidence of any wiretaps, much less evidence Obama knew about any wiretaps — just more Trump paranoid hysteria.

 

However, Patriot Post editor Thomas Gallatin provided a heap of evidentiary substance for Trump’s claims, given that news of wiretaps on senior Trump leadership, while Obama was in office, had been widely affirmed by the same Leftmedia outlets now denying Trump’s claims about wiretaps. Some of the more notable MSM print and talkinghead “journalists” even cited these wiretaps as sources for their “reports” on Trump.

 

Gallatin pointed out that the MSM was “disingenuously dismissive” in rejecting Trump’s charge, especially given that an initial request to wiretap Trump’s team was turned down by the FISAC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court), but subsequent requests were granted.

 

Allow me to elaborate.

 

In June 2016, after Trump had clinched the Republican nomination, Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch tried to meet secretly with Bill Clinton on a tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. A few days later, after a visit to the White House, Lynch’s Department of Justice asked the FISAC for wiretaps not just for communication devices in Trump’s office but specifically for Trump’s phones.

 

This request never would have been submitted without Lynch’s consent, which she never would have given without Obama’s consent. (If only the NSA could produce a transcript of that conversation.) While FISAC most often rubber stamps requests, the court denied the Obama administration’s first request because it was a fishing expedition based on speculation of criminal activity.

 

On 21 July Trump became the Republican nominee. A week later, The Washington Post and other media outlets began propagating the Trump/Putin collusion myth.

 

In October, a month ahead of the presidential election, looking for any shred of evidence that might corroborate the myth, Obama’s Department of Justice again asked FISAC for wiretap warrants for Trump’s office, this time (according to our sources) omitting Trump’s name specifically and making the request on broad speculation about national security concerns. FISAC approved that request, and since such permissions apply, by extension, to others mentioned in the intercepted communications, we may fairly assume that Trump’s name was mentioned and, consequently, his lines were monitored.

 

Recall if you will that a week before the election, Hillary Clinton posted this social media message: “Computer scientists have uncovered a covert server linking the Trump organization to a Russian-based server.”

 

Huh? Did she mean the “scientists” at the Department of Justice? Was she confusing this with the discovery of her own “covert servers”?

 

In fact, no such evidence of the Russian link has been discovered.

 

Sidebar: However, there were direct links between Tony Podesta, brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and Russians, who paid him more than $170,000 for six months of “consulting” to influence Clinton and ensure, once elected, she would reduce the sanctions Obama was compelled to impose after Putin invaded Ukraine. His firm was paid $24 million in fees in 2016, mostly from foreign interests.

 

Back to the media’s now-acute case of wiretap amnesia — they now insist that Trump’s wiretap accusations have no merit.

 

Allow me to direct your attention to a headline on the front page of The New York Times on Inauguration Day, January 20th, which boldly cites Trump wiretaps as its source for information regarding assertions about collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign leadership team.

 

According to Times writer Michael Schmidt, “American law-enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broader investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President elect Donald J Trump. … The FBI is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the CIA and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. … The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. [So, why is this front-page news on Inauguration Day?] One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.”

 

Got that? Again, “some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House” — while Obama was still in office.

 

This week, the same Times writer, Michael Schmidt, under the headline “Trump Offering No Evidence,” asserts that Trump “accused former President Barack Obama of tapping his phones at Trump Tower the month before the election, leveling the explosive allegation without offering any evidence.”

 

The same “no evidence” headlines were atop The Washington Post and other MSM outlets.

 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

 

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

 

5:35 AM – 4 Mar 2017

 

For the record, while Trump’s social media wiretap messages were intended to imply that Obama had knowledge of the wiretaps, as is too often the case with such “loosely worded messaging,” he provided the MSM yet another “huge” opening to focus on the fallacy of his “literal message.”

 

Frankly, all of us should be able to take the literal words of a United States president posted on social media, literally. There is now a predictable MSM blowup pattern when Trump’s version of literal departs from the rest of the world’s reality, and these self-inflicted wounds continue to cost him precious political capital.

 

In this instance, the MSM used his literal messages to divert from the questionable legality of the wiretaps and their propagation of the Trump/Putin myth, and focus instead on the fact there is currently no evidence of Obama fingerprints on, or knowledge of, those wiretaps — even though Schmidt wrote in January that the wiretapped communications were provided to the White House while Obama was in office.

 

Let me reiterate: The July and October wiretap requests never would have been submitted without Lynch’s consent, which she never would have given without Obama’s consent. But there will likely be no fingerprints or electronic trail on these consents. Obama’s staff would have most certainly ensured that he had “plausible deniability” in regard to any knowledge of politically motivated wiretaps.

 

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey concludes, “I think [Trump is] right in that there was surveillance and that it was conducted at the behest of the attorney general — at the Justice Department.” But proving it is another matter.

 

That notwithstanding, there is plenty of reason for anyone with an ounce of healthy skepticism to conclude, with high probability, that Trump’s communications were intercepted and, with a reasonable level of confidence, that Obama was aware of those wiretaps.

 

Of course, the first victim within Trump’s administration to be felled by these “non-existent wiretaps” — orchestrated and illegally released by some yet-to-be determined government hack while Obama was in office — was Trump’s nominee for National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

 

Flynn, as you may recall, was the most vocal former high-ranking military officer who opposed Obama’s nefarious “Iran Nuke Deal,” which is precisely what put him in the sights of Obama’s deep state operatives who remain within the FBI and/or CIA.

 

After his confirmation in January, Flynn was bushwhacked with a complicated web of media accusations based on wiretap transcripts, which were illegally distributed to Obama-friendly MSM outlets.

 

Though the Flynn transcripts indicated no wrongdoing, in February he fell on his own sword and resigned in order to minimize the collateral political damage to the Trump administration. (For the record, the CIA and the Departments of Justice and Treasury are now being sued by Judicial Watch, on behalf of Flynn, to see whose fingerprints are on those wiretaps.)

 

Amid the wiretap wars this week, you may have missed this conclusion about the Trump/Putin election collusion from former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. According to Clapper, there wasn’t “any evidence” found by the CIA or FBI in their investigations that would indicate “any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.”

 

The New York Times conceded as much in January and again in February, so why was this a front-page headline story?

 

But as noted previously, the Leftmedia never let facts get in the way of a political hit piece — until they’re caught in a BIG propaganda lie. In the light of truth, the political cockroaches scurry for cover.

 

Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney and respected legal analyst, summarized the lie: “The specter of an investigation — breathless media reports of FISA-court applications, wiretaps, surveillance of agents of a foreign power, and mysterious servers; painstaking analysis of shady financial transactions involving Russian banks and funding streams — seems to make the outlandish conspiracy impossible to dismiss out of hand.”

 

McCarthy continued, “Into this misleading ‘Russia hacked the election’ narrative, the press and the Dems injected a second explosive allegation: Not only did Russia hack the election, but there are also enough ties between people in the Trump orbit and operatives of the Putin regime that there are grounds to believe that the Trump campaign was complicit in Russia’s hacking of the election. Transparently, the aim is to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election victory.”

 

As for the Leftmedia retreat, McCarthy notes, “Now that they’ve been called on it, the media and Democrats are gradually retreating from the investigation they’ve been touting for months as the glue for their conspiracy theory. It’s actually quite amusing to watch: How dare you suggest President Obama would ever order surveillance! Who said anything about FISAC orders? What evidence do you lunatic conservatives have — uh, other than what we media professionals been reporting — that there was any investigation of the Trump campaign?”

 

Constitutional attorney Mark Levin, former chief of staff to Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese, asserts that while “No evidence is found” tying Trump or anyone on his team to Russia, “the wiretaps continue.”

 

Levin concludes, “The issue isn’t whether the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign or transition of surrogates; the issue is the extent of it.”

 

Which leads me back to my original assertion: The Trump/Putin myth being propagated by the Democrats and their Leftmedia propagandists has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with derailing Trump’s agenda. However, Trump’s social media messages are certainly assisting their cause.

 

Footnote: Unfortunately, some of the “conservative media,” most notably Fox News, are reading off the same Beltway memos being broadcast by the Leftmedia — but then they also have advertising to sell… Fox News now has a lower rating for “somewhat credible” and higher rating for “not credible” than CNN, according to recent news credibility polling.

 

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
Pro Deo et Libertas ~ 1776

 

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertas — 1776

___________________

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 supporting the Patriot Fund!

 

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 © 2017 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/)”

 

The Patriot Post
PO Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 37401

 

About The Patriot Post

 

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

 

Mission

 

From our 1996 inception, with sage advice from conservative protagonists William F. Buckley (National Review, Emeritus), Ed Feulner (Heritage Foundation, Emeritus) and our National Advisory CommitteeThe Patriot Post has been steadfast in our mission advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.

 

Thanks to our fellow Patriots across the nation, and our devoted team of editors, technical and creative staff, and support personnel, The Patriot Post has grown from its humble beginnings into a highly acclaimed touchstone of Liberty for conservative leaders across our nation, and the leading online resource for First Principles.

 

Our objective is to equip the current generation of American Patriots with the right information to more effectively “Support and Defend” the unalienable Rights of Man, as enumerated in our Declaration of Independence, and codified by the Rule of Law enshrined in our Republic’s Constitution. Since our first day in circulation, The Patriot has been an indispensable resource for the force multipliers in our ranks, who have enlisted many others to the eternal cause of Liberty.

 

The Patriot Post frames current political and policy issues in the correct constitutionally constructionist context established by our Founders and supported today by the plurality of Americans who uphold the most basic tenet of our Republic: “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.”

 

Operations

 

The Patriot Post—inspired by our READ THE REST

 

2016 — The Math That Matters Most


Trump v Hillary - who do you vote 4

Don Moore posted an interesting analysis focused on Donald Trump. The article is written by Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post. I actually also receive a Patriot Post subscription but I thought I’d give credit to where I read Alexander’s thoughts which Don Moore’s group on the Blind Conservative Group on IO.

 

It appears to me that Mark Alexander is not a Trump supporter; nonetheless Alexander provides a fairly decent examination that if Trump wins the GOP nomination and the Dem nominee is Hillary Clinton. Which is to say Trump loses unless these set of circumstances emerge …

 

JRH 4/8/16

Please Support NCCR

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

2016 — The Math That Matters Most

A Trump v Clinton Matchup

 

By Mark Alexander

Sent: 4/6/2016 2:09 PM

Post Date: April 6, 2016

Original link: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/41763

Sent by Blind Conservative Group on IO

 

Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullability [sic] takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.” -Thomas Jefferson (1822)

 

The 2016 general election will determine not just our next president; it will also determine which political party controls the Senate and House.

 

While the House is securely in Republican hands, Senate control is most assuredly in play1. That’s because Republicans will be defending 24 Senate

seats2 while Democrats only need defend 10. Currently, Republicans hold a narrow 54-46 majority in the Senate.

 

Consequently, this election is not just a four-year decision but a generational one, because the next president will nominate the Supreme Court justice who will fill the swing-vote vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia3, and perhaps three additional seats – those of Justices Ginsberg, Kennedy and Breyer. If Hillary Clinton4 holds off the challenge from Socialist Bernie Sanders5 and is then elected president on November 8, only a Republican Senate would stand between her and the progressive dream of a statist-controlled Supreme Court for the next quarter-century.

 

We elect our presidents every four years, but those presidents nominate Supreme Court justices for life.

 

This is what Ronald Reagan meant when he said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

 

Let me be clear: If Republicans lose both the presidential election and control of the Senate, the Socialist Democratic Party6 will control the despotic Judicial Branch7 for the foreseeable future, and the tyranny of the so-called living constitution8 will reign supreme.

 

Thus, those of us who support Liberty and First Principles9 should engage in a vigorous debate about the qualifications of presidential candidates, and the consequences of who will run against Hillary Clinton this November. We should consider with great deliberation the character of our presidential candidates10.

 

For the record, that debate among those of us who advocate for Liberty by way of the ballot box, among other means, is not restrained by Ronald

Reagan’s11 admonition about fratricidal attacks – his “Eleventh Commandment12.”

 

In his 1990 autobiography, “An American Life,” President Reagan wrote of that brother-against-brother fratricide in his first campaign for the California governorship: “The personal attacks against me during the primary became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It’s a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.”

 

Reagan fared well by following that rule, and after soundly defeating Jimmy Carter for the presidency in 1980, he won 49 of 50 states during his re-election campaign of 1984 – losing just Minnesota, the home state of his opponent Walter Mondale, by a mere 3,800 votes. (Oh, and he also lost the District of Columbia – an outcome that speaks for itself.)

 

Unfortunately, Republican presidential contenders since, most notably the 17 GOP candidates13 who began this primary, have taken the art of fratricidal attacks to new lows.

 

In every respect, this election cycle is like no other I have ever witnessed

– or read about – and primarily for one reason: The “establishment politicians,” the professional political class, are disconnected from those of us who live outside the Washington Beltway.

 

It’s no wonder that Bernie Sanders is nipping at Hillary Clinton’s heels, having thumped her in seven of the last eight contests – including last night’s double-digit win in Wisconsin14 – and I totally understand the popular appeal of Donald Trump15. According to the most recent (and reliable) Quinnipiac University political poll16, 57% of Americans agree that “America has lost its identity.” The same percentage say that they are “falling further and further behind economically,” and 53% say they want “a leader who is willing to say or do anything to solve America’s problems.”

 

These findings are consistent with our analysis and what we hear from our fellow grassroots Patriots17, most of whom have expressed their support for Ted Cruz or Donald Trump over the more centrist John Kasich.

 

But unlike each of these remaining three candidates who have broken their

pledges18 to support the eventual GOP nominee, I will support that nominee because I know for certain the perilous threat that “President Hillary Clinton” poses to the future of Liberty.

 

Last night’s Wisconsin win for Ted Cruz notwithstanding, Mr. Trump still has a commanding delegate lead in the race to see who will likely face Hillary Clinton.

 

But there are serious questions about the election math – not of the GOP convention math19 as determined by the delegates20, but of the general election math.

 

That is the only math that matters.

 

Until recently, Donald Trump has frequently referenced his “lead in the polls.” I tend not to reference most media polls because of what we define as the “Pollaganda Effect21,” which is: Outcome-based opinion samples (polling instruments designed to generate a preferential outcome), which in large measure reflect prior-opinion indoctrination or cultivation by the same media conducting the poll. The incestuous results are then used to manipulate public opinion further by advancing the perception that a particular candidate or opinion on an issue enjoys majority support.

 

But that being said, there are some very distressing research polls assessing a matchup between Clinton and Trump in the general election.

 

Notably, the results of these polls have been affirmed consistently for several months now. Allow me to reference a couple of the most recent findings below, and, of course, you determine what to make of these findings.

 

On Monday, there was a report from Whit Ayres, president of the conservative polling firm North Star Opinion Research and author of “2016 and Beyond: How Republicans Can Elect a President in the New America.”

 

According to Ayres’s research, “A Trump nomination has as much chance of success in the general election as Trump University, or Trump Mortgage, or Trump Shuttle, or Trump Vodka, or Trump Casinos. Trump is an electoral disaster waiting to happen.” He then notes the demographic trends22 that will have enormous impact in 2016: “A Republican nominee who hopes to win a majority of the popular vote in 2016 must gain either 30% of the nonwhite vote or 65% of the white vote, a level not seen since President Ronald Reagan’s 49-state landslide sweep in 1984.” There are more women than men voters, and “Trump’s favorable to unfavorable ratings among white women are 29% to 68%. . Millennials have now passed baby boomers to become the largest generation. Trump’s ratings among millennials are now 18% favorable to 80% unfavorable, with 70% strongly unfavorable.” (Trump’s unfavorable ratings with women are even higher in the latest Wall Street Journal/ABC News poll23.)

 

Ayres continues, “Since 1984, no victorious Republican presidential candidate has received less than 91% support from Republicans. Trump’s favorable to unfavorable ratings among Republicans are 52% to 47%, with 34% strongly unfavorable. A candidate beginning a general election campaign with almost half of his party holding unfavorable views is a non-starter.

 

Contrast that with Hillary Clinton’s favorable to unfavorable ratings among Democrats of 78% to 20%. A Trump nomination would put a Democrat in the White House, seriously threaten Republican majorities in Congress and leave the Republican Party in shambles.”

 

For the record, Trump’s GOP unfavorable ratings are on par with those24 of George W. Bush at his presidential low point.

 

Next up is the most recent research from Public Policy Polling25 on the most popular Republican in the race – Donald Trump – unless Kasich drops out.

 

According to this and similar polls, 42% of Republican voters would support Trump if the election were held now. About 33% would support Cruz and 22% Kasich. However, when asked if Kasich were to drop out, 51% of his supporters go to Cruz while only 23% support Trump. That would put Trump and Cruz in a statistical dead heat.

 

Notably, the latest Reuters rolling averages26 today put Cruz ahead of Trump nationally. These numbers have significant implications for the general election, particularly since Mr. Trump has yet to collect more than 49% of the votes in any primary.

 

 

The general election results, and the likelihood that Republicans will lose their Senate majority with Trump on the ticket, are upheld by both conservative and liberal media research, as noted both in New York Times poll summaries27 and Washington Post poll summaries28. They are also affirmed by the 30-day rolling average of polls29.

 

Perhaps most ominously, Larry Sabato, a seasoned election forecaster at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, concludes that in a Clinton v Trump contest, Democrats will go into Election Day with a whopping 347 electoral votes in their pocket or strongly leaning30 toward Clinton. They only need 270 to win. And by way of affirmation, Clinton leads Trump by double digits in six of the most comprehensive polls taken in the last month.

 

The fact is, whether the polling source is Left, Centrist or Right, Trump takes a beating in a head-to-head general election matchup with Clinton.

 

Based on the total number of primary votes cast to date, about 5% of all eligible voters have checked ballots for Donald Trump. That means an even smaller percentage have cast primary votes for Ted Cruz and others – because until a few weeks ago, the field was still flooded with GOP candidates. But, the percentage of primary votes cast for a candidate is of less importance than the percentage of total eligible voters supporting a particular candidate.

 

All that having been said, as utterly perplexing as the current primary cycle is, it remains possible that once Trump and Clinton debate each other mano a mano (yes, the masculine applies to Hillary), Trump might pull enough blue-collar and rustbelt Demo support away from Clinton to defeat her. This will be especially true if the momentum generated by Sanders does not transfer to Clinton. (She is, after all, a historically weak, unpopular and untrustworthy candidate.)

 

And where can Clinton attack Trump31 without undermining her own campaign?

 

Not Wall Street connections, not personal integrity, not honesty, not wealth, not marriage infidelity, etc. Raising any of those issues with Trump will draw fire on her own record. Of course, there is that wild card: A Clinton indictment32.

 

Unfortunately, she is coated with as much non-stick Teflon as Bill Clinton33. Even under the most unfavorable circumstances for Clinton, a Trump victory would still be a long shot.

 

If Trump is the nominee, I hope he can defeat Clinton – but I don’t base my reasoned, critical analysis on popular opinion or “hope,” and neither should any of us.

 

Again, this is not just a four-year decision but a quarter-century decision.

 

If Hillary Clinton wins and Republicans lose control of the Senate gauntlet against her judicial nominees, batten down the hatches.

 

Ultimately, the math that matters is the poll taken on November 8th of this year. I care less about the name of the GOP candidate than I do that candidate’s ability to defeat Clinton at best, or leave the GOP Senate majority intact at worst.

 

(Finally, a request for prayer: This morning, our nation lost another great Patriot. Sandy McMillan served with SEAL Team 2 and was a fellow Navy Leaguer. He was a family man, a long-time colleague and friend. Please pray for his wife and their family. Fair winds and following seas, my friend! We will miss you.)

 

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

 

 

Links

 

1.http://patriotpost.us/articles/41037

 

2.http://patriotpost.us/posts/41134

 

3.http://patriotpost.us/articles/40676

 

4.http://patriotpost.us/alexander/37087

 

5.http://patriotpost.us/alexander/40591

 

6.http://patriotpost.us/alexander/9235

 

7.http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2937

 

8.http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2970

 

9.http://patriotpost.us/alexander/7324

 

10.http://patriotpost.us/alexander/41349

 

11.http://patriotpost.us/alexander/8891

 

12.http://patriotpost.us/alexander/23978

 

13.http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36849

 

14.http://patriotpost.us/posts/41753

 

15.http://patriotpost.us/alexander/40890

 

16.http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2340

 

17.http://patriotpost.us/alexander/9612

 

18.http://patriotpost.us/posts/41617

 

19.http://patriotpost.us/articles/41755

 

20.http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433519/donald-trump-nomination-political-suicide-republicans

 

21.http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3060

 

22.http://www.wsj.com/articles/whit-ayres-a-daunting-demographic-challenge-for-the-gop-in-2016-1425513162

 

23.http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/examining-trump-s-problem-female-voters-n544901

 

24.http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx

 

25.http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_32916.pdf

 

26.http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20160101-20160405/type/day

 

27.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/us/politics/donald-trump-general-election.html

 

28.https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/04/01/gop-wakes-up-polls-are-no-longer-trumps-friend/

 

29.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

 

30.http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-only-thing-that-matters/

 

31.http://patriotpost.us/posts/41374

 

32.http://patriotpost.us/articles/41642

 

33.http://patriotpost.us/alexander/24356

 

34.https://patriotpost.us/donation/new?ref=site_content

______________________

Copyright from The Patriot Post: © 2016, The Patriot Post.

 

Blind Conservative Group Description

 

A group for blind people and others for the discussion of politics and other conservative interests.

 

Subscribe to Blind Conservative: blind-conservative+subscribe@groups.io

 

I’m Still a Cruzer


John R. Houk

© February 4, 2016

The next day after the Cruz victory in Iowa the Senator was castigated by Ben Carson for disseminating false information that possibly led Carson supporters to support Ted Cruz. The question then is: Did Cruz tell his campaigners to lie about Carson or did the campaigners take it upon themselves to tell caucus goers that Carson had pulled out of the Iowa contest?

If Cruz was involved in that decision that indeed would be a dirty trick that probably isn’t illegal but morally bankrupt. If Cruz wasn’t culpable the next logical step would be to fire the campaign staff personnel involved in the error in decision or outright scandalous political behavior. Myself I am going to err on believing Cruz had little to zero involvement in giving marching orders to undermine Carson’s campaign.

This whole issue has inspired Donald Trump to cry foul probably because if Carson delegates left for Cruz, that may have rocketed Cruz to his win and relegated Trump to second place. After understanding situation, Trump has become furious. Not because Trump’s good buddy Carson was robbed of delegate votes but because the issue may have cost Trump an Iowa victory. Ergo, if I heard correctly on the news this morning, Trump wants the Iowa Caucus vote nullified and a do-over to occur. Frankly I doubt such a re-vote or re-count will occur; nevertheless, the tone taken by Trump demonstrates just how vicious the hotel/casino magnet can get when a “deal” falls through.

Now this led me to ask myself who are my favorite candidates to win the GOP nomination for President.

I have to be honest with you. I was as intrigued by the Trump make America great again message as many other Americans have been and still are. I want to reverse the Obama curse, make the military strong again, name and confront American enemies, stop illegal immigration, kick out illegal immigrants taking advantage of entitlements while deserving Americans are still waiting in line (e.g. Veterans), refusing Muslim refugees whose devotion to Islam will eventually lead to un-American activities rather than assimilation and so on.

With all that intrigue I had this gnawing in the back of my mind about how the old deal maker mixed with Big Business causes to the detriment of basic core Conservative values, mixed with Democrats that definitely promoted anti-Conservative principles and had a mixed pro-life and a mixed Christian affinity past.

Then I have always had an affinity to the causes that Cruz stood for such as pro-life, pro-Tea Party causes, a staunch Conservative and anti-Establishment GOP kind-of-guy.

I also liked Marco Rubio as a Christian and Conservative but thought his experience was a bit lacking especially when GOP Establishment individuals began to throw support behind Rubio after it became evident that Jeb Bush did not have the support of the GOP Conservative base.

And so perhaps we Conservatives should pay attention to Conservatives like Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post who have always questioned Trump’s dedication to Conservative principles and values as you can read in Alexander’s February third essay that is less than favorable toward Donald Trump.

JRH 2/4/16 (Hat Tip Don Moore of Blind Conservatives)

Please Support NCCR

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

If Trump Is the Answer…

What Is the Question?

By Mark Alexander

Feb. 3, 2016

The Patriot Post

“It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts.” —Patrick Henry, 1775

If Donald Trump is the answer, then what’s the question his supporters are asking?

Fact is, they’re asking the most important questions every genuine conservative is asking. Consistent with The Patriot Post’s mission statement, all of us are asking, “How do we restore constitutional limits on government and the judiciary? How do we restore free enterprise, our national defense capabilities and traditional American values? How do we undo all of the damage Obama has done and correct our nation’s course back toward Liberty? How do we defeat Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders and win the next presidential election?”

But Donald Trump?

By way of disclosure, let me say that I would “vote early and often” for Trump if he is the Republican nominee. Having said that, I hope there will be a more viable and reliable ballot option.

Bear with me.

In the wake of the Iowa caucus results, Trump is again asking, “How stupid are the people of Iowa?” After a 15-hour blackout, he woke up mad, claiming, “Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it. … Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.” This from a guy who has not voted in a Republican primary for almost 30 years… (This sounds like a set up — “I’m being treated unfairly, thus I will run third-party to insure a Democrat victory in 2016!”)

Though I consider Iowa more a generator of media advertising revenue than I do a solid predictive indicator of presidential election outcomes, the caucus results are, just the same, instructive.

Trump, who assumed he had Iowa in the bag, made two mistakes that will influence the results of the upcoming primaries.

First, he backed out of the Iowa debate just before the caucuses, not because he has “zero respect for [Fox News journalist] Megyn Kelly,” as he claimed, but to avoid being called out on a growing list of prevarications and obfuscations. Despite the not-too-clever diversion of his alternate event “for the veterans,” his supporters in Iowa stayed focused on the task at hand — casting a vote for the candidate they think is best suited to be the 45th president of the United States.

Second, while he may have avoided the Iowa debate, Trump’s petulant attack against his primary rival, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, in the days after that debate resulted in exposing his clear and continuing support for ObamaCare, one of the most important agenda items on conservative lists for legislative repeal.

Just before the Iowa Caucus, Cruz asserted, “Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have the identical position on health care, which is they want to put the government in charge of you and your doctor.” That is not quite accurate — Trump’s socialist health care plan is actually more statist than Clinton’s plan.

Trump attempted to deflect the criticism, protesting, “Ted Cruz is a total liar. I’m so against ObamaCare. … I don’t even know where he gets this.” Where Cruz “gets this” is the same place he got Trump’s liberal “New York values” — remarks from Trump himself! Trump has written and spoken repeatedly in support of state-run health care systems. In his book, “The America We Deserve,” he praised Canada’s failed socialist single-payer health care system: “We must have universal health care. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one.”

Betrayed by his own words, Trump refuted (and simultaneously confirmed) Cruz’s claims, saying, “He has got no heart. And if this means I lose an election, that’s fine because frankly, we have to take care of the people in our country.” Of course, Trump’s socialized medicine proposals would deepen the disastrous consequences of the so-called “Affordable Healthcare Act” and accelerate the deterioration of health care services. Think “Veterans Affairs on steroids.”

The fact is, Trump is a case study in contradictions, with long-held and defended liberal positions averse to Liberty, including his support for state-run health care, gun control, enormous tax increases and executive unilateralism. His apparent contradictions are now the toasts of late-night liberals like Stephen Colbert, who recently aired a “debate” segment, Donald vs. Trump.

Apparently, Trump didn’t receive the memo that a man has only one chance to make a first impression. Now, instead of providing a candid and honest explanation for his 11th-hour conversion to conservatism and all the flip-flopping, Trump is content to simply deny he ever held those liberal positions. His undeniable denial of reality should concern anyone who supports him.

Having said this, I expect protests from Trump supporters that will fall into two previously established categories.

About 10% will offer reasoned objections, which I welcome. They are actually open to criticism of Trump, and the resulting dialogue provides useful insights for both of us.

However, the remaining 90% will hurl vitriolic diatribes, shooting insults and threats at this messenger, much like the shots Trump takes at his critics. The rage and resentment in these protests are a testament to Trump’s anger-driven support, which I described in “The Trump Card — Ace of Anger Affirmation.”

For the record, I have been shot at on a few occasions — and by “shot at” I mean with high-velocity projectiles, not derogatory words — so insults don’t bother me. But what I do find deeply troubling is that the vitriolic variety reflects a cultish devotion to Trump, whose narcissistic persona basks in the light of such unquestioned devotion. Too many of his supporters are intolerant of any divergent perspective on Trump, no matter how well reasoned.

Don’t get me wrong: Grassroots Americans should be angry about the lame “establishment Republicans” who haven’t made way for the growing ranks of young conservatives now in the House and Senate.

And it’s not only Trump’s conservative supporters who are mad. Notably, analysis in The New York Times — “Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat” — recently reflected that “[h]is very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats.” These are folks who, in 1980, might have been described as “Reagan Democrats.”

The comparison is understandable, given that Trump’s simple mantra, “Make America Great Again,” was “borrowed” from President Reagan’s slogan, “Let’s make America great again.” Fact is, Trump is a “good communicator” and his simple solutions to complex problems resonate with both grassroots Republicans and Democrats.

But Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan, who was a genuine, humble conservative, and a model of servant leadership.

Human nature tells us that many people are more convicted by what they want to believe than by a considerable body of evidence contradicting those beliefs. Noted historian John Lukacs, in his book “Democracy and Populism,” wrote, “Most people believe and think what they prefer to think and what they want to believe: their vision of the world and their own likes and dislikes … are seldom separable.”

In the timeless words of John Adams, however, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Facts and evidence, fellow Patriots. Facts and evidence.

Donald Trump is not the answer to the critical questions genuine conservatives are asking, including those genuine conservatives among his supporters.

So, it’s off to New Hampshire we go, where I expect Trump’s “New York values” to play well. However, take note. His national disapproval rating has soared to 60%, which renders him all but unelectable against potential adversaries as fundamentally flawed as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden.

But if Trump actually makes it to the general election and defeats his Democrat opponent, I note this irony: Now that the ranks of conservatives (as opposed to “Republicans”) in the House and Senate have surged, those conservatives might be faced with a “Republican” president who is both autocratic and statist, a combination that will be perilous to the future of Liberty.

Finally, Donald Trump was asked recently to define “conservatism” and he was at a loss of words – rare for Trump. But last week, Ben Sasse, one of the rising young conservatives in the U.S. Senate, was asked the same question, and Trump should listen to Ben’s 90-second response.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s Youtube video not a part of original Patriot Post]

 

VIDEO: Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) on MSNBC Defining Conservatism

 

Posted by Heritage Response Room

Published on Jan 29, 2016

 

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

____________________

I’m Still a Cruzer

John R. Houk

© February 4, 2016

___________________

If Trump Is the Answer…

*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

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

‘Our Shared Values’?


Blog Editor Intro to: ‘’Our Shared Values’?

Editor: John R. Houk

Posted November 5, 2015

We don’t hear too much of getting rid of Obama as POTUS because of the scandals that are consistently blocked from legal digging which prevents any connection to illegal activities. Those activities I am convinced are among the most corrupt and probably treasonous enough to alter and abandon the U.S. Constitution to the annals of history long gone. Obama’s two term constitutional limitation will be up in January 2017. That is of course there is some truth to the Conspiracy Theory of Obama plotting an unconstitutional third term.

Mark Alexander has written an essay-bio of Obama based on documented facts and less on speculation guessed from what we know of his past. It is a primer for a smart Republican President to investigate a post-Obama Administration and to go after Leftists like the Clintons (slick Willie and Hillary), removing the Teflon so the dirt sticks exposing illegal and probable treasonous activities. It is only after the Teflon is removed will America’s Leftist transformation be reversed into the Constitutional Republic envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Pay attention to Alexander’s bio and realize there is a nefarious agenda that even well intentioned Leftists would not agree with.

JRH 11/5/15

Please Support NCCR

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

‘Our Shared Values’?

Obama’s Twisted Interpretation of “American Values”

By Mark Alexander

November 4, 2015

The Patriot Post

“Every consideration that can influence the human mind, such as honor, oaths, reputation, conscience, the love of country, and family affections and attachments, afford security for their fidelity.” —John Jay in Federalist No. 64, 1788

Obama and His Narcistick

Barack Obama often makes reference to “our values,” “shared values,” “American values” and “who we are.” It’s an interesting propaganda ploy — one that he uses to lull the more gullible members of his audience into a belief that he and he alone is the ultimate arbiter of our nation’s values.

In September, Obama issued a fact sheet on “Advancing Shared Values.” It was a rosy assessment of the morals, ethics and ideals that the American people share with Pope Francis. It framed most of those shared values in the context of “social justice,” a pleasant-sounding Marxist term that fully comports with Obama’s worldview.

Earlier this year, in his “Proclamation of Religious Freedom,” Obama also referenced “our shared values,” but it’s clear that his is the most faith-intolerant regime in the history of our Republic.

In his last State of the Union address, Obama talked of “the values at stake,” “democratic values” and “the example of our values.” He also asserted that we “share certain bedrock values,” and that “a better politics is one where we … talk issues and values.”

He referenced “who we are” and told us repeatedly “as Americans” what we believe.

The fact is, however, Obama’s version of “our shared values” and “who we are” is deeply flawed, which is in part why he now presides over the most distrusted administration in American history.

In 2009, I noted that Obama’s remarkably brief White House bio began with this ridiculous assertion: “His story is the American story — values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a strong family…” You can make up the rest.

Amazingly, Obama’s deceitful bio page has not been altered since 2009.

So, in an effort to better understand who Obama really is, and what he means by “shared values,” let’s review Obama’s real story.

Lolo Soetoro, Stanley Ann Dunham, Maya Soetoro-Ng & Barry Obama-Soetoro

Barack was born to Stanley Ann Dunham and BHO senior, a Kenyan Muslim polygamist alcoholic. Both parents were socialist atheists who met, fittingly, in a Russian language class while students at the University of Hawaii. They were married shortly before Obama was born and separated soon thereafter. Thus, young “Barry,” like millions of urban youth today, was abandoned by his father.

When Obama was four, his mother remarried to an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro. He and his mother moved with Soetoro to Jakarta, where young Barry Soetoro spent four years in local Islamic schools. That helps explain his blinding Islamophilia.

Young Barry became attached to his stepfather, but Lolo and his mother (who would later divorce) sent a 10-year-old Barack back to Hawaii to live with his Communist-sympathizing grandparents.

Abandoned by both his father and stepfather, Obama fell under the spell of avowed Marxist Frank Marshall Davis, who stewarded Obama’s worldview until he left for college.

Obama moved to Los Angeles and studied for two years at Occidental College, transferring to Columbia University and graduating with a BA in political science in 1983. In 1985, he moved to Chicago to become a “community organizer.”

There, Obama met Michelle Robinson. They dated through law school and were married in 1992, by Jeremiah “G-D America” Wright, the now-infamous “black liberation” heaver of hate rhetoric. Their two daughters were baptized by Wright, and the Obamas remained active in Wright’s church until Obama distanced himself from his spiritual mentor during his 2008 presidential campaign.

While in Chicago, Obama developed close associations with many other leftist radicals, including Bob Creamer, Edward Said, Roberto Unger, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Michael Pfleger, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko and the ACORN crowd.

Barack and Michelle Obama often quote Saul Alinsky, the patron saint of radical “community organizers.” The dedication of Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals,” proclaims, “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

(Then) PM Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Barack Obama (selfie) & displeased Michelle Obama

And that, fellow Patriots, is the real Barack Obama bio. Those are his “values from the heartland,” and that is his “middle-class upbringing in a strong family.” Like so many leftists, his roots are shallow and broken, and he’s a master of the BIG Lie. Indeed, his whole façade is a colossal lie.

Obama’s tragic childhood manifests in his psychopathology, which dictates and frames his values. The absence of his father and the fact that he was never appropriately affirmed has manifested in chronic narcissistic personality disorder.

Charles Krauthammer concurs: “I decided when I left psychiatry never to use my authority. But let me just say as a layman, without invoking any expertise, Obama is clearly a narcissist.” Krauthammer added, “This is a character story. I mean, we all know that Obama is a narcissist.”

Obama and his mentors subscribe to rigid doctrines and “nanny state” regimes to satiate their persistent insecurity, the result of low self-esteem and arrested emotional development. They externalize responsibility for problems and solutions by holding others to blame for their ills and bestowing upon the state the duty for arbitrating proper conduct — even proper thought. They are driven primarily by self-interest.

BHO self-portrait as Messiah

Tragically, the net effect of Obama’s social policies, and those of other “Great Society” leftists over the last five decades, is a nation that increasingly looks as broken as Obama, ensuring that ever greater numbers of his leftist cadres do share his values.

The Democratic Party has redistributed more than $22 trillion in what has amounted to a war against self-reliance, and they have created a dependent welfare state enslaving tens of millions of our fellow Americans on urban poverty plantations. It’s no coincidence that conservative political bases tend to be suburban or rural, while liberal political bases tend to be urban. The urban plantations are Leftist breeding grounds for legions of the disenfranchised, those who are largely dependent on the state for all manner of their welfare, protection and sustenance.

The consequences of the current welfare state are borne out in Nicholas Eberstadt’s comprehensive study, “American Exceptionalism and the Entitlement State.” As Eberstadt concludes, “Until and unless America undergoes some sort of awakening that turns the public against its blandishments, or some sort of forcing financial crisis that suddenly restricts the resources available to it, continued growth of the entitlement state looks very likely in the years immediately ahead. And in at least that respect, America today does not look exceptional at all.”

The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), a man of great intellect, warned, “It cannot too often be stated that the issue of welfare is not what it costs those who provide it, but what it costs those who receive it.”

Indeed, the human cost is immeasurable, and the result is that those who share Obama’s values have no common values with American Patriots,

whose tireless service and sacrifice are truly the bedrock support of the Unalienable Rights of Man.

In his 1981 proclamation on Father’s Day, Ronald Reagan wrote, “There is no institution more vital to our Nation’s survival than the American family. Here the seeds of personal character are planted, the roots of public virtue first nourished. Through love and instruction, discipline, guidance and example, we learn from our mothers and fathers the values that will shape our private lives and our public citizenship.”

Obama missed those values.

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/)”

 

The Patriot Post
PO Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 37401

 

Support The Patriot Post

 

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 current policy and culture issues in the correct constitutionally constructionist context established by our Founders, and READ THE REST

The Difference Between Lies and the Truth


Mark Alexander looks at the lies told by Hillary Clinton on the 10/13 CNN debate. Incidentally lies that Bernie Sanders says he is weary of listening to. Not because he has heard too many lies but implying Hillary’s lies are either the truth or not proven ergo irrelevant. Sanders was tired of hearing about those “damn” emails, as if the Hillary-email idiocy was a hoax. I guess if the Dems get away with this line reasoning, the Dem voters are as moronic as the Dem Party believes.

JRH 10/14/15

Please Support NCCR

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

The Difference Between Lies and the Truth

By Mark Alexander

October 14, 2015

The Patriot Post

“[She] who permits [herself] to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; [she] tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing [her]. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition.” —Thomas Jefferson (1785)

Democrats Explained in Logos

Patriots, I am away this week with my hero — my father, who is critically ill. As always, our able editors remain on station!

Nate Jackson provided analysis of the few substantive remarks from the Demo-Debate Tuesday night, particularly assertions from Hillary Clinton regarding her email server subterfuge.

For more than a year, Clinton has endeavored to escape accountability for unlawfully maintaining all of her official communications outside of official networks when she was secretary of state. Clearly, this was an effort to protect her 2016 presidential bid from the plethora of nefarious activities reflected in those emails.

Unfortunately, careless remarks by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy two weeks ago bolstered Clinton’s claims that the Benghazi investigation was just political. In fact, the business of that committee is deadly serious.

In the debate, Clinton claimed, “[The Benghazi] committee is basically an arm of the Republican National Committee. It is a partisan vehicle, as admitted by the House Republican majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, to drive down my poll numbers. Big surprise. And that’s what they have attempted to do.”

Further, regarding her electronic communication charade, Clinton insisted, “I’ve been as transparent as I know to be.” That vacuous remark is completely meaningless.

Her evasive efforts notwithstanding, there are two things that need to remain front and center about Clinton’s felonious email communications — and her subsequent cover-up efforts.

First, her emails show her complicity in formulating the political lie about the murder of our personnel in Benghazi — Christopher Stevens, his aide Sean Smith, and two diplomatic security officers, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Her Benghazi lie was an effort by Clinton and others in the State Department to provide Obama political cover for his “al-Qa’ida on the run” campaign theme just weeks ahead of the 2012 presidential election.

So determined was Clinton to propagate this lie that she shamefully stood in front of those four flag-draped caskets and declared to the families of the dead, “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

Second, despite Clinton’s claims, “I did not email any classified material to anyone” and “There is no classified material,” it is now apparent that hundreds and perhaps thousands of her unsecured email communications contained significant classified content. Transmitting that content is a felony.

But not only was her arrogant “above the law” use of unsecured email illegal, it was deadly dangerous because it exposed policy directives and the names of covert operatives. And only the most naïve Clintonista would insist that Russia and China did not have access to all of her unsecured communication.

Last weekend, Barack Obama declared, “I can tell you that [Clinton’s unsecured email server] is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.” His minions are now walking back that absurd assertion.

Fact is, the greatest threat to America’s national security has been, and remains, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

In an address to the nation in 2010, Barack Obama declared, “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

Obama and Clinton have avoided the truth as if their political lives depended on it — which of course, they do.

Share

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/)”

 

Defend Liberty! – Support The Patriot Post

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

The Unalienable Rights of Man


Chris Cuomo vs. AL Chief Justice Roy Moore

Chris Cuomo interviewing AL Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore

 

 

Mark Alexander writes about how Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (Politico gives a decent profile yet as expected is a bit judgmental by I think to attain to neutrality) contradicts Lefty Chris Cuomo (Andrew’s bro and Mario’s son) assertion that America’s Rights and Laws come from Man’s collective agreement and compromise. Cuomo’s assertion was in response to Moore’s assertion that “Rights contained in the Bill of Rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God.”

 

God bless Roy Moore and my fellow Americans be wary of the American Left propaganda. That propaganda is a part of President Barack Hussein Obama’s 2008 promise to fundamentally transform America. That transformation agenda is to increase government meddling, decrease the influence of our Christian heritage, embrace a Socialist-Democratic governing model that weakens our future with Multiculturalism trumping our Founding Fathers.

 

See Also Mark Levin on Cuomo’s assertion.

 

JRH 2/19/15

Please Support NCCR

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

The Unalienable Rights of Man

A Brief Civics Lesson on the Fundamentals of Liberty

 

Support-Defend Essential Liberty

 

By Mark Alexander

Feb. 18, 2015

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)

 

Just in time for the faux celebration of “Presidents’ Day” this week, faux CNN celebrity “journalist” Chris Cuomo, brother of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (both heirs to the Mario Cuomo Demo Dynasty), managed to dispense with the Declaration of Independence and its 239 year enshrinement of American Liberty – in a mere 10 seconds.

 

In Cuomo’s interview with a real Patriot, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, on a Tenth Amendment (States’ Rights) issue, Judge Moore stated that the “Rights contained in the Bill of Rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God.”

 

Cuomo, endeavoring to redefine the origin of Rights, rebutted, “Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man. … That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”

 

I am quite sure that Judge Moore, a West Point graduate, Army captain and Vietnam veteran who later earned his JD and embarked on a law career, wanted to grab Cuomo, who has spent his entire adult life as a media talkinghead, and slap some sense into him.

 

Instead, Judge Moore responded thoughtfully and respectfully, paraphrasing our Declaration’s foundational assertion, which reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [not man] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among [not over] Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [not the government].”

 

Given that Cuomo’s knowledge of history and law is unduly limited by his Ivy League education, and unduly revisionist by his Democratic Party indoctrination, allow me to provide an elementary civics lesson in regard to the words “endowed by their Creator.”

 

First, Cuomo argues, “Our rights do not come from God. … That’s your faith, that’s my faith…”

 

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

 

The first paragraph of our Declaration references “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,” which informs the words “endowed by their Creator” in the second paragraph.

 

To better understand what is meant by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” recall that our Declaration’s signers were not of one mind on matters of theology and doctrine. They were Christians, Deists and Agnostics, but they did, however, uniformly declare that the Rights of all people were, are and forever will be innate and unalienable, as established by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

 

This is not an article of “faith” as Cuomo assumes. It is the assertion that the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” while enshrined in our Declaration, is inherent and applicable to all humans of every nation, religion, race and ethnicity, for all time.

 

It makes no difference what your concept of “Nature’s God” or our “Creator” is, or whether you even subscribe to any such conceptualization. You, and all people, are entitled to Liberty and all the rights it embodies.

 

As Founder Alexander Hamilton wrote, “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.”

 

Next, Cuomo insisted, “That’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”

 

Now that is an absurdly malleable heap of horse pucky. Cuomo has discounted the universal guidance of the Declaration, as if our Founders intended the Constitution as a substitute for it. Of course, it did no such thing, nor was that the intent of our Constitution’s delegation or ratification.

 

In that regard, I note that on the occasion of the Declaration’s 50th anniversary, James Madison (our Constitution’s principle author) wrote to Thomas Jefferson (our Declaration’s principle author), that the Constitution was subordinate to the Rights enshrined in our Declaration. Madison noted, “On the distinctive principles of the Government … of the U. States, the best guides are to be found in … The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States.”

 

In other words, although the Articles of Confederation and its successor, the U.S. Constitution, were the contractual agreements binding the several states into one union – E Pluribus Unum – the innate Rights of Man identified in the Declaration are the overarching act of that union, and would never be negotiable by way of “collective agreement and compromise.”

 

Nor are those Rights negotiable today or tomorrow.

 

However, Cuomo’s conflation of Rights and laws asserts that the Rights of Man are, at any time, subject to the whims of agreement and compromise. Again, one wonders what part of “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” Cuomo doesn’t understand. Perhaps it’s the “unalienable” part, which means “unable to be taken away or transferred.”

 

Not only do Cuomo and his leftist ilk refuse to acknowledge that the Rights of Man are non-negotiable, but they subscribe to the errant notion of a “living constitution” – one which is subject to executive and legislative encroachment, and particularly judicial amendment by diktat, instead of its prescribed method of amendment in Article V.

 

Though they take solemn oaths to “to Support and Defend” our Constitution, most politicians on the Left and too many on the Right ignore that obligation, and have trampled Constitutional Rule of Law with reckless abandon. The implications for Liberty are dire.

 

The debate between Judge Moore and Cuomo is the foundational basis of all historical debate regarding Liberty and tyranny, or in contemporary political parlance, between Right and Left – between conservatives and liberals. The core question being debated: Who endows the Rights of Man, God (as ordained in natural law) or government (ordained by man)?

 

The Left’s position has been made plainly evident by Barack Hussein Obama, who has a history of deliberately and repeatedly omitting the words “endowed by their Creator” when citing in open constituent forums the Declaration’s reference to “Rights.”

 

Obama and other contemporary leftist protagonists seek to substitute Liberty as ensured under Rule of Law with the rule of men. They do so because the former is predicated on the principle that Liberty is innately “endowed by our Creator,” while the latter asserts that government is the sole arbiter and grantor of 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 defending Liberty at home and around the world. Indeed, as Jefferson wrote, “The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

 

Our Founders concluded our 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.”

 

Millions of fellow Patriots honor that pledge today, and stand ready to extend Liberty to the next generation.

 

(To promote Liberty and recruit additional Patriots to our ranks, please distribute our Essential Liberty Pocket Guide to your family, friends and colleagues.)

 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

 

__________________________

[Blog Editor: The Patriot Post is absolutely a supporter supplied organization. PLEASE send your appreciation from your check book or online – HERE]

 

*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/ )”

 

The Patriot Post
PO Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 374
01

BO’s Blinding Islamophilia


Caution - BO-Hazard (as in BHO)

I’m probably not as much an erudite writer as I am one who writes within the scope of a sense frustration. Thus when I do run into an erudite writer as the Patriot Post’s Mark Alexander, I am quite happy to cross post their thoughts. In this post Alexander succinctly writes what I have been blogging for some time. Read, enjoy, but most of all, understand the message!

 

JRH 2/12/15

Please Support NCCR

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

BO’s Blinding Islamophilia

The REAL National Security Threat

 

By Mark Alexander

Feb. 11, 2015

The Patriot Post

 

“There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.” –George Washington (1793)

 

Islamophile: One who is so enchanted by Islam as to be under the influence of its tenets.

 

In 2009, I noted that Barack Hussein Obama’s remarkably brief White House bio began with this fallacious assertion: “His story is the American story – values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a strong family…” And you can make up the rest.

 

Amazingly, his [BIG Lie] (http://patriotpost.us/alexander/22209] bio page has not been altered since then.

 

So, in an effort to better understand who Obama really is, and where his religious alliances fall, let’s briefly review.

 

Barack was conceived to unwed parents, Ann Dunham and his Kenyan father, BHO senior, both atheists. They were later married and then divorced. When Obama was four, his mother remarried, this time to an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro. In his 1995 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” Obama wrote that Soetoro subscribed to “a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths.”

 

At the age of 10, Obama returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who might best be described as agnostic. There, he would fall under the spell of an avowed Marxist, Frank Marshall Davis.

 

As a young adult and budding “community organizer,” Obama was taken under wing by a radical black supremacist pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who married Barack and his wife, Michelle, baptized their children and stewarded BO’s “faith” for 20 years. For those two decades, Obama also developed close associations with many other leftist radicals, including Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Bob Creamer, Edward Said, Roberto Unger and others.

 

That is the real Barack Obama bio, and those are his “values from the heartland.” Further, while he self-identifies as “Christian” rather than Muslim, that claim may be as deceptive as his bio.

 

With that in mind, in this seventh year of Obama’s seemingly limitless foreign and domestic policy failures, despite the ominous and impending threats from resurgent al-Qa’ida terrorist networks, the Islamic State, and clear evidence that Islamist Jihadis are targeting the USA, Obama never mentioned al-Qa’ida or Islam in his 2015 SOTU address three weeks ago.

 

Nor did Obama mention Islam when referencing the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris in early January, except to insist again that Islam is the “Religion of Peace.”

 

British journalist Douglas Kear Murray, an expert on Islam, asserts that many Muslims today subscribe to “a creed of Islamic fascism – a malignant fundamentalism, woken from the dark ages to assault us here and now.” He notes, “The claim that Islam is a religion of peace is a nicety invented by Western politicians so as either not to offend their Muslim populations or simply lie to themselves that everything might yet turn out fine. In fact, since its beginning Islam has been pretty violent.”

 

More recently, Obama dismissed the subsequent slaughter of Jews in Paris as an act committed by “a bunch of violent vicious zealots who … randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli.” Obama’s spokesman Josh Earnest demonstrated a heroic display of verbal contortionism in endeavoring to explain Obama’s assertion that the attack was random. Those “violent vicious zealots” were Islamists, and there was nothing “random” about terrorists targeting a kosher Jewish deli.

 

Last week, Obama used a Christian forum, the National Prayer Breakfast, to sanctimoniously denigrate Christians. The theme for this year’s event was “Remembering the Armenian Genocide of 1915,” when more than a million Christians were murdered by Muslims. That notwithstanding, he claimed Christians and Muslims are equal partners in murder and mayhem:

 

“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place – remember that the Crusades and the Inquisition committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” He added, “Slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

 

Really? For the record, Obama has ordered drone strikes against Islamic targets that have killed more Muslims in six years than were killed during three centuries of the Spanish Inquisition. (Look it up!) And the Crusades were, arguably, undertaken in the name of “the church,” not Jesus Christ. As Islamic scholar and historian Bernard Lewis notes,

 

“The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad – a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war.”

 

Clearly, there is nothing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that advocates or could even be loosely construed to advocate violence against non-Christians. However, there is plenty in the Quran and the Hadith (the teachings of Muhammad) advocating death to infidels. As Franklin Graham reminds us,

 

“Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give his life for the sins of mankind, not to take life.”

 

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, the child in Indian immigrants, rebutted Obama’s assertion, saying,

 

“It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast. Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam. … The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.”

 

As to Obama’s reference to slavery, the abolitionist movement to end chattel slavery in the United States 150 years ago was led by white and black Christian men and women, as was the movement to end segregation 50 years ago. Christians of yore were at the forefront of these sweeping changes, while Muslims today are at the forefront of murderous global Jihad.

 

This metastasizing Islamic threat advocates for a “master race,” much as did Adolf Hitler prior to World War II. However, rather than a world dominated by Aryans, Islamists seek a worldwide caliphate of Islamists, or “Jihadistan.” And on the subject of percentages, some have suggested that because only 10 percent of Muslims are extremists we need not worry. However, in 1940 only seven percent of Germans belonged to the National Socialist German Workers Party. How did that work out?

 

Notably, the 2014 Global Slavery Index reports that of the more than 29 million humans held today in captive slavery – defined as “the possession and control of a person in such a way as to significantly deprive that person of his or her individual liberty, with the intent of exploiting that person through their use, management, profit, transfer or disposal” – more than 18 million are being held in Islamic countries, primarily (and ironically) in Africa.

 

Indeed, ISIL has institutionalized slavery in the Middle East.

 

In an interview this week, Obama delusionally insisted that concern about [Islamic] terrorism is simply media-driven hype:

 

“If it bleeds it leads, right? … It’s all about ratings.”

 

When asked why Obama would posit such a ludicrous assertion, my favorite psychiatrist, Charles Krauthammer, said flatly,

 

“Because he believes it. … If he was just being cynical as a way to dismiss this because of the failure of his policies, that would be one thing. I think he believes this. … This is what is so terrifying about the man who is commander in chief of a country, essentially a civilization, under attack.”

 

Krauthammer added,

 

“For the last six years Obama has acted as if the biggest threat American security [in the Middle East] is the Israeli government.”

 

Curiously, at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama asserted, “We are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion for their nihilistic ends.” Whose religion was he referencing?

 

Perhaps the answer is found in Obama’s many words of praise for Islam since 2009:

 

“I will stand with [Muslims] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. … The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. … We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world – including in my own country. … As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. … Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. … Islam has always been part of America. … We will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. … These [Ramadan] rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. … America and Islam … share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. … America is not and will never be at war with Islam. … Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. … In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education. … Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. … That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. … Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

 

So, why does Obama refuse to mention Islam in connection with worldwide Islamic Jihad that is at our doorstep?

 

I believe it is because he is, first and foremost, an Islamophile, and thus he has what is almost a pathological blindness to the threat posed by Jihad.

 

On the other hand, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former Defense Intelligence Agency director, has been very clear in his assessment of our enemy:

 

“You cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists. … There are many sincere people in our government who frankly are paralyzed by this complexity. … [They] accept a defensive posture, reasoning that passivity is less likely to provoke our enemies. … A strong defense is the best deterrent. … The dangers to the U.S. do not arise from the arrogance of American power, but from unpreparedness or an excessive unwillingness to fight when fighting is necessary. I think there is confusion about what it is that we are facing. It’s not just what has been defined as 40,000 fighters in the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, it’s also a large [radicalized segment of Muslims] who or threatening our very way of life. … We really don’t have an effective strategy that is coherent, that actually addresses the wider problem. … I think what the American public is looking for is … moral and intellectual courage and clarity, and not a sense of passivity and confusion.”

 

Flynn’s assessment follows that of the Director of National Intelligence, Lt. Gen. James Clapper, who, in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said a year ago,

 

“Al-Qa’ida is morphing and franchising itself … in Yemen, Somalia, in North Africa, in Syria … and what’s going on there … is very, very worrisome. … Looking back over my more than half a century in intelligence, I have not experienced a time when we’ve been beset by more crises and threats around the globe.”

 

Even one of the Democratic Party’s most liberal members, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, insisted,

 

“The presence of terrorist groups including those formerly affiliated with al-Qa’ida and others, has spread over the past year. In fact terrorism is at an all-time high worldwide.”

 

And this week, Congress provided the Army an end-run around Obama’s classifying Nidal Hasan’s murderous attack at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.” Instead, it is now classified as an act of terrorism and Hasan’s victims will now receive Purple Hearts.

 

But Obama can’t bring himself to call it what it is.

 

In fact, he insisted this week that climate change is a far greater threat, but noted it’s “happening [on] such a broad scale and [is] such a complex system, it’s a hard story for the media to tell on a day-to-day basis.”

 

Fact is, bloody Islamist attacks are also “happening on a broad scale” and on a “day-to-day basis” – and are getting closer to home every day. The murder of American relief worker Kayla Mueller, as confirmed yesterday, is yet another example of the evil we are confronting.

 

So, let me script this one for Obama so at his next stump speech he gets it right:

 

“We are at war with radical Islamic terrorists. Violent global jihad poses an immense existential threat to the civilized world, particularly since Iran is, or already has, the capacity to hand its asymmetric surrogates a nuclear weapon.”

 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

_______________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

As Editor I took the liberty to block quote the quotations used by Mark Alexander if those quotations were at the end of a paragraph.

 

Contribute to The Patriot Post

 

© 2015, The Patriot Post.

 

About The Patriot Post

 

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

 

Mission

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

 

We believe, as did our Founders, that we have an irrevocable right and obligation “to support and defend” Liberty, as “endowed by our creator” and enshrined as Rule of Law in our Republic’s Constitution.

 

The Patriot Post frames current policy and culture issues in the correct constitutionally constructionist context established by our Founders, and supported today by the plurality of Americans who uphold the most basic tenet of our Republic: “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.”

 

Operations

Key Managers of the Patriot Team

 

The Patriot Post—inspired by our National Advisory Committee and crafted by an editorial team headed by Mark Alexander—is an indispensable resource for “grass-top” leaders across the nation. These conservative gate keepers use our content as a force multiplier, a source of critical information and inspiration for their grassroots constituencies. The Patriot Post provides a hard-hitting rebuttal to contemporary political, social and mainstream media protagonists on the Left. We offer a brief, informative and entertaining analysis of the week’s most significant news, policy and opinion in our Daily Digest, while READ THE REST