Expatriation – No Citizenship, No Constitutional Rights

/in /by

At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, again, here comes another dangerous tool aimed at avoiding Constitutional restrictions in the name of fighting terrorism.  It is clear that our Congressmen believe that the pesky Constitution severely limits them in their noble efforts to keep us poor defenseless little citizens safe.  Members of Congress vehemently defended their vote for NDAA by stating that US Citizens were specifically excluded from detention under the counterterrorism provisions.  Although we know that to be doubtful, Senators Joe Liebermann and Scott Brown along with Representatives Charles Dent, Jason Altmire, Robert Latta and Frank Wolf are working to make that defense irrelevant – eliminate the person’s citizenship and he HAS no Constitutional rights – problem solved.  These men have submitted for review S. 1698 and H.R. 3166, bills that will be better known as the Enemy Expatriation Act.

Interesting how the words of our founders still come back to haunt us.  In the Letter from a Federal Farmer 8, the author warns us that:

Men may always be too cautious to commit alarming and glaring iniquities; but they, as well as systems, are liable to be corrupted by slow degrees.

That is exactly what has happened.  The elimination of Constitutional rights of US Citizens are being eroded by slow degrees. Consider the following:

Immediately after 9/11, Congress passes the Patriot Act, legislation that in part allows the FBI to conduct warrantless searches and seize people and property without probable cause and without judicial review.

Next we have Janet Napolitano issuing in an OFFICIAL REPORT of the Department of Homeland Security stating that soldiers returning from Iraq and those who oppose abortion, along with others who hold conservative American values are the real potential terrorists.

Recently, in April of 2011, the Government Accountability office reported that State Department and DHS officials could not agree on “what degree of ‘association’ with a terrorist is sufficient to render an applicant ineligible for a visa.”  Through this report we know that our US Visa offices are and have been granting legal resident status to citizens who have documented terrorist affiliation.  We also know that these legal residents have been granted full citizenship in spite of their documented terrorist affiliation.  Case in point; consider Faisal Shahzad, the failed Times Square bomber, who was granted a student visa and then full citizenship all the while being on a terrorist watch list.  Because of Faisal Shahzad’s terrorist attack on America, Eric Holder went on a campaign, not to fix our immigration system or to limit the real terrorists, but to declare that OUR Constitutional rights should be “more flexible” so we can combat terrorism.

Every move that has been taken by this government moves us closer and closer to the death of the Constitution in the name of combating terrorism.

Next, the National Defense Authorization Act declares an indefinite worldwide war on terrorism and makes provision for the indefinite detention of those whom the government labels terrorists, or belligerents, or hostiles, or…?

Congressman after Congressman has declared that these sections EXCLUDE US Citizens.  They ignore section 4 that authorizes open and unchecked waivers of any established limitations. They claim that the language of this Act, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States” gives that exclusion, even though telling a government agency they are not required to do something is not the same as prohibiting them from doing it.  Not even close.  We have declared open and undefined war on the nebulous enemy – “terrorism”, and we have given the President the ability to detain US Citizens indefinitely. Never fear, while admitting that NDAA grants such authority, the current President has promised he will not use that power.

Obama will never have to keep that promise if the Enemy Expatriation Act passes, since this act will strip US Citizens of their citizenship for simply being suspected of association with terrorist activity.

The Immigration and Nationality Act establishes guidelines of how a citizen can “lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality”.  The act then proceeds to list seven ways someone can relinquish their citizenship, among those acts is treason.  The Enemy Expatriation Act adds an additional criteria, language straight out of those troublingly worded sections of NDAA that we were told were not aimed at US Citizens.  According to Senator Leibermann and others, citizens both by birth and naturalization do not deserve their citizenship if they are suspected of:

engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.

We should be asking ourselves, why do we need this language in addition to the crime of treason already listed as a way to lose citizenship.  The key may lie in the definition of treason in the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist of only levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving Aid and comfort.  No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Constitution and the provisions in the Immigration act both require a conviction of treason in court.  The standard of engaging in or purposefully and materially supporting, as stated in the Enemy Expatriation Act contains no requirement for CONVICTION of these activities.  The Patriot Act allows the government to build their suspicion upon information obtained using warrantless searches.  The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have made it clear who they think the enemy is and that they believe these “enemies” deserve no Constitutional rights.  But I guarantee, those in favor of the Enemy Expatriation Act will claim that they have now defined “hostilities” and this will protect those citizens who have “nothing to hide”.  The act declares “hostilities” for THIS SECTION means, any conflict subject to the laws of war.   This does not define “hostilities” for any other document in effect.  We must remember NDAA has declared open and continual war on terrorism.  This “limitation” is no limitation at all.

Do not be fooled.  Arm yourself with the truth!

Will a Spineless Congress Allow More Obama Lawlessness?

/in /by

About six months ago I gave REAL reasons why Obama should be impeached. Now as part of President Obama’s fundamental transformation of America, this lawless tyrant is intent upon completely overturning one of the most fundamental characteristics of our Republic; Separation of Powers. The checks and balances in the American system were instituted for the express purpose of combating the rise of a tyrannical and oppressive government.

Nonetheless, on December 31, 2011 Josh Earnest, White House deputy press secretary said, “the president will have a larger playing field. If that includes Congress, all the better,” But, he added, “that’s no longer a requirement.” The president did not waste any time in thumbing his nose at the rule of law. Just today, the President announced the “recess appointment” for the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new members to the National Labor Relations board. So what is the problem? Congress is NOT IN RECESS. The President has made a complete end run of Congress and has violated his limitations in Separation of Powers. But what is the big deal about Separation of Powers?

James Madison points out in Federalist 47 that,

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Our founders spent a great deal of time discussing separation of powers and believed that such separation was essential to the protection of our liberty. The discussion of the time was not whether these branches SHOULD be separate, but to WHAT DEGREE they should be separate; the founders knowing, as Madison points out, that a separation of the three branches of government was necessary to preserve Liberty. They all agreed that the accumulation of all powers by one person or a single group of people is the very definition of tyranny. “Where the accumulation of power is possible, no further argument is necessary” to support a division and separation of those powers. Madison declares: “…by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. “

Our Founders also believed that a certain amount “blending” of these departments was necessary to prevent one Branch from usurping power over the other. This blending is what we know as checks and balances. Madison understood that simply enumerating powers and identifying boundaries on paper would be an insufficient barrier “to the encroaching spirit of power.” Liberty cannot be preserved unless you allow for departmental oversight. Madison made this point very clear:

”But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”

The abuses of this President definitely need to be controlled. The absolute amazing thing about this entire scenario is that a President was IMPEACHED for the very thing that our current lawless Executive is doing. On March 3, 1867 Congress enacted the Tenure of Office Act over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. The Tenure of Office Act was designed to prevent the President from removing any office holder appointed by a past president without the advice and consent of the Senate. Johnson did not acknowledge this limitation and publicly declared the 39th Congress was not a Congress at all. He then removed the then Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton from office and appointed Ulysses S. Grant in his place. On February 24, 1868 the House of Representatives brought 11 articles of impeachment against Johnson according to article 2 of the Constitution. Ten of these articles were dedicated to Johnson’s ignoring this Separation of Powers. Johnson was successfully impeached by the House, but was acquitted after trial. Although several Governors had been impeached in the colonies, this was the first sitting president to be impeached. Most impeachments have occurred due to the executive branch ignoring its limitations through separation of powers.

In this case, unlike today, Congress fulfilled their responsibility in the “checks and balance” aspect of the Separation of Power and impeached Johnson. Our founders knew that these checks and balances MUST be utilized to prevent the natural course of men who wish to be tyrants. Madison explains:

“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

If such strong checks were and are necessary to resist the tyranny of men, then why are these checks not being employed? History and experience prove not only that Obama’s attempts to completely destroy liberty must be stopped, but that Congress has the ability to stop him. What has happened to the integrity and resolve of the men and women we have elected to protect Liberty? I believe much of it has to do with a complete ignorance of history and a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution. The House of Representatives, by their complete inaction, will allow another dangerous precedent to eat away at America’s Constitutional foundations. The House must begin the impeachment process and end this unconstitutional usurpation by the executive branch, TODAY. We cannot allow this tyranny to continue. Congress must know if they will not stand for Liberty, WE WILL. Just a reminder, Congress, YOU WORK FOR US. Your job obligations and responsibilities are clearly identified in the law, in the Constitution and in the “operator’s manual” written by those who wrote the Constitution. If you don’t understand them, I am more than happy to come and teach you. But do hear us, Congress… Do your job or be fired!

Step up and defend Liberty.

The Inalienable Right to Life

/in /by

It seems to be growing increasingly popular to use the 10th Amendment to justify carte blanche legislative authority within the states. Even some Presidential candidates have implied that because of the 10th Amendment, states can “pass whatever laws they want.” Recently, others have said that if a state wants to legalize abortion, the 10th Amendment gives the state the power to do so. I would like to assert that some issues cannot be legislated by the states and in particular abortion is NOT a state’s rights issue, and here’s why:

We cannot fully understand the 10th Amendment until we understand of the 9th Amendment as well. The 9th Amendment says:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And to understand the 9th Amendment we must understand the debate that produced it. The debate was over the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into our Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton was not in favor of incorporating the Bill of Rights. As he states in Federalist 84,

I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. (emphasis added)

It was Hamilton’s belief that the Constitution was very clear as to the limitation of powers for the Federal Government. His greatest fear was that by incorporating a “list” of rights, it would provide those in power the opportunity to spread tyranny and liberty through interpretation and regulation.

They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the National Government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for Bills of Rights. (emphasis added)

In other words he is saying that those in power would see the enumerated list of rights as areas that the branches of government must define and regulate – else why would they be listed?

In the end James Madison felt he had the solution to this problem.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution. (Emphasis added)

Madison, when speaking of the “last clause of the fourth resolution,” was referring to what we now know as the 9th Amendment. He was telling all of those who were not comfortable in ratifying Bills of Rights, that the 9th Amendment would solve all those problems. Madison believed that specifically stating that the Bills of Rights do not in any way give the government more power than was already given and reaffirming that these rights belong to the PEOPLE and not the government, would create a barrier of protection against encroachment of these important rights belonging to the people.

The key to the 10th Amendment is understanding that our Founders went out of their way to make sure it was abundantly clear that the Rights enumerated belong to the PEOPLE and not to the Government – neither state nor federal. So when the 10th Amendment says, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, our founders were NOT creating three separate seats of power in the United States: the Feds, the States, and the People. They were saying, in conjunction with the 9th Amendment, hey United States, hey States, these rights belong to the PEOPLE through the States. The founders never intended for the States to disparage these rights, any more than they intended the Federal government of the United States to disparage them.

Our Founders never intended to invest in the states the power to remove someone’s right to bear arms, for instance, otherwise the Second Amendment would not say,

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.

If a state could have power to eliminate the right of its citizens to bear arms, the objective of maintaining a free state would be defeated and that state would become a tyrant over its people. Our founders never intended for the States to have the ability to violate someone’s free speech, right to religious liberty, or takes someone’s person, property or life without due process, else the states again, would be the tyrant over its people. While there are many things, in fact most things, that the States should legislate, there are certain inalienable rights that cannot under our Constitution be legislated away.

Life is not something that should be legislated away. Life is an inalienable right. That this right begins at conception is a biological fact. This fact was not “overturned” by science in Roe v. Wade, but by manipulation of facts through law. If real science had been used and not legal manipulation, denying life in the womb at conception would have failed. The argument of viability, as established by Roe, is based upon the argument that if you remove the fetus from the womb at a certain point, that fetus (or if you prefer those cells) would die and therefore was not alive and not a person. Logically speaking, by admitting that this life will die implies that it was alive at some point. Using this same logic to determine that life never existed does not hold up in science either. There are many single celled organisms that will only survive on a particular growth medium. You will be hard pressed to find a microbiologist tell you that these organisms were never alive, because they failed to live outside their nutrient rich medium. Additionally, by the very definition of abortion, you must admit life exists at the time of abortion. You cannot abort an action that has never begun. Therefore, Roe is not only unconstitutional, but logically and scientifically unsound. Even the judge in Roe admitted if it would be established in court that life began at an earlier stage, this life would have rights. This error is not a matter of science, but a matter of incompetent legal argument.

Finally, to use the 10th Amendment as an excuse to deprive someone of life is a misapplication of Constitutional principles. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are both very clear as to the founder’s understanding of the right to Life. If we do not have life, we have neither Liberty, nor an opportunity to pursue happiness. In fact, our founders repeatedly declared that they were pledging life, fortune and sacred honor for “ages and millions yet unborn.” Abortion is not a state issue as assigned by the 10th Amendment, nor is it a “social” issue not to be discussed; it is that very matter of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness upon which our Constitution is based. A state cannot adopt laws to eliminate free speech and cannot pass laws to legalize murder and the 10th Amendment cannot be used to justify abortion. To claim to be a Constitutionalist and say the 10th Amendment permits a state to legalize abortion is to misunderstand the Constitution and the 10th Amendment itself.

Some would use the same Constitutional argument against the death penalty. Just like abortion, one may be morally opposed to the death penalty, but there is a difference in these two issues from a Constitutional perspective. You have the ability to forfeit your Liberty, through the application of due process, by committing a capital offense. Abortion, however, is sentencing someone to death who has committed no crime, without due process.

We must remember that Liberty is not only freedom, but freedom fettered by morality. Some “social” issues that touch on morality are a matter of Constitutional relevance, and are essential to maintaining Liberty. Sadly, we live in a society that increasingly believes, as Suhas Sreedhar, 26, an engineer working in a computer company in Manhattan who states in a USA Today article, “God? Purpose? You don’t need an opinion on those things to function.” You do, however, need to have an opinion of these things to maintain Liberty.

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? -Thomas Jefferson.

Ignorant Judges are Lethal to Liberty

/in /by

It seems that every week there is some new attack on Liberty.  Last month, it was the US Navy trying to remove Religious Liberty in the name of “Separation of Church and State.”  Last week it was our Congress, removing the right of trial and habeas corpus from US Citizens.  I attribute this to the dismal state of our education system.  We the people are so very ignorant of not only what our Liberties are, but of their source and value.  Ask someone to tell you the five specific protections that exist in the First Amendment and you might hear one or two, followed by a blank stare and silence. Those that hate the fact that Liberty is an inherent possession of the people and want Liberty to be something the government gives to the “worthy” have really taken advantage of this gross negligence.  If we do not know, if we do not understand what our Liberties are, how do we recognize when they are under attack?

Our legal education system is no better.  Rulings that fly in the face of our founders’ intent illustrate the shaky foundation given to our lawyers and judges.  In a recent example a US District Judge, Marco A. Hernandez, has taken it upon himself to decide who has the right to freedom of the press and its protections and who does not.   This judge has done so by determining that a blogger, who has over 400 blogsites that publish her work, cannot possibly fall under the title of journalist.  After all, we all know that the only people that are journalists are those represented in the White House Press Corp or paid by top media corporations.  We definitely cannot accept someone who considers themselves a “blogger” and only prints on the internet as a REAL Journalist!

That is exactly how this federal judge has ruled.  Oregon statute reads:

“[n]o person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by . . . a judicial officer . . . to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise . . . [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public”

“Medium of communication” is broadly defined as including, but not limited to, “any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.”

However, this judge has claimed that this woman is not a journalist because she:

“fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system”

I am amazed at the focus of this Judge.  He has taken the examples in the statute as the litmus test for determining media, completely ignoring the very plain statements “any medium of communication to the public” and “not limited to”.  Any other time, a judge would be using this language to bring in everything, including the kitchen sink.  This stinks of motive.  But the Judge is not finished with his definition of media.   He claims in order for Ms. Cox to be “media” she must show…

 “evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story.”

This time, however, the Judge uses no statute, no legal source to develop this further definition. This is apparently something he has come up with all on his own.  I wonder if many in mainstream media could hold up under this standard.  I know for fact that today’s “journalists” fail in at least 5 out of 7 of these benchmarks.  I mean really, when was the last time you heard this level of journalism from any US mainstream media?  Because Ms. Cox does not fit this Judge’s internal definition of media, she is therefore not afforded the same protections as a paid member of the mainstream media due her under Oregon statute.

Would our founders, so vital to the very establishment of Liberty, have qualified as journalists under these standards?  What about the Committees of Correspondence founded by the likes of Richard Henry Lee, Sam Adams, and James Otis, Jr.?  These committees were dedicated to the purpose of providing the colonists with the truth about the activity of the British Government. Many colonists were tired of the propaganda and false reports coming from the King, Parliament, and their dedicated media and wanted to know the truth.  The committees of correspondence provided this truth.  They also became the Sons of Liberty and sparked a revolution.

I’m sure Thomas Paine would’ve landed on this federal judge’s chopping block, as well.  After all, he was not paid by any media corporation and was definitely not approved by the crown for his Common Sense publications. We cannot forget about Mercy Otis Warren, who through her prolific writings of articles and plays encouraged a nation to stand against tyranny.  Once again, I doubt if she would have been considered a “journalist” under this judge’s guidelines; she had no education in journalism, she was not employed by a major media outlet, and she certainly didn’t interview “the other side” to get both sides of the story.  She didn’t have to, she was living it.

But how did our founders intend to handle this “congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the freedom of press”?  The best argument I can offer is that of Alexander Hamilton’s as he states in Federalist Papers 84.

“…why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”

Hamilton argued with the likes of James Madison and Richard Henry Lee that an incorporation of the Bill of Rights would be a danger to the very liberty that they hoped to protect. He believed to his core that if the Bill of Rights were incorporated in the Constitution, that it would provide to those who wanted to control Liberty the very excuse to do so through definition and regulation.

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted… I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”

Hamilton actually uses the illustration of the freedom of press.  He reasonably argues that there is no need to insert a protection of freedom of press, because the federal government had been given no power to interfere with this Liberty.  Hamilton knew, as Madison points out in Fed 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined.”  Madison continues to specifically list those powers as “principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” Hamilton pointed out that regulation of freedom of press, or any of the proposed rights, was not part of the powers given to the federal government so they would have no right to attempt to regulate it.

Hamilton’s greatest fear was that by attaching a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, evil men who wanted to control Liberty would then claim a right to regulate Liberty.   Here we are, fulfilling Hamilton’s greatest fear, coincidentally using his very illustration.

Our Constitution and our Liberty is in peril because our legal professionals have no idea the history behind our Constitution and the reasoning our founders put into its provisions. Our lawyers and judges cannot honestly honor their oath to the Constitution, because they have no true understanding of its meaning.  They cannot do as John Adams commanded, “have an attachment to the Constitution and a conscientious determination to support it”, and ensure a “free republican government” when they are ignorant of the founder’s intent.

We the people must fill this void.  We must become the ones educated enough to make that conscientious determination to support the Constitution.  Reading it is not enough.  Knowing case law is not enough.  Just as any legally binding contract, we must understand what the parties intended the obligations and limitations of government to be.  Otherwise we just end up pooling our ignorance.  In this case, ignorance is not bliss, it is the death of Liberty.

Art Law Prof

Yes Patriot, There is Hope for America – Merry Christmas

/in /by

Many patriots have expended a great deal of energy this year in the fight to see our Liberty protected and America’s greatness restored. As we enter into this Christmas season with many struggles ahead and mountains yet to be conquered, let us be reminded of a hope rooted firmly in the American experience.

Our history is rich with men and women who have surrendered all so that many could have the greatest nation the world has ever known. For over 700 years before the Declaration of Independence, men and women were learning the lessons that would be taught to our founders. Lessons that would infuse our founders with a courage and a hope that would build the greatest nation in the world. Patrick Henry said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way to judge the future but by the past.” He was letting us know that his knowledge of those last 700 years, were the very reason he knew how this fight would turn out. He knew that every time men and women understood the value of Liberty and pledged all to protect it, they were always victorious. These guarantees of history must have raced through Henry’s head; 1100 Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta, 1628 Petition of Right, 1641 Grand Remonstrance, and his very own Bill of Rights of 1689. These were battles fought in the name of Liberty and he knew that victory was a guarantee. This is our history. This is our guarantee. This is our victory!

Patrick Henry had more than knowledge of history. Patrick Henry knew their victory was guaranteed not only by the lamp of experience, but also because they served a “just God who presides over the destinies of nations” and when standing for Liberty, a gift from God, they could not fail.

He declared,

“We are three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

Benjamin Franklin reiterated this understanding to our founders when he proclaimed:

“In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor…and have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”

Though we may become reacquainted with the history that provides us with a guaranteed victory when we choose to stand for Liberty, we are still wanting until we reacquaint ourselves with the Giver of that Liberty. Thomas Jefferson warned,

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?”

Our founders were in a position to pledge their lives, the lives of their families, everything that they had because they were firmly rooted in ALL the assurances of Liberty.

There is a story told of Daniel Webster – one of the greatest orators of our time – on his death bed, being ministered to by his dearest friend and physician. When his friend realized he could no longer minister to Daniel’s physical needs, he began ministering to his spiritual needs. He read to Daniel his favorite hymns. He read, “There is a fountain filled with blood, drawn from Emmanuel’s veins…” and when Daniel’s friend read the last verse to this hymn “Then in a nobler sweeter song, I’ll sing thy power to save, when this poor lisping stammering tongue lies silent in the grave” one of the greatest orators the world has ever known uttered his final three words, “Amen, Amen, Amen.” Our founders knew that Liberty is a gift from God, and those that stand for God’s gifts will be victorious through God’s promises. They firmly believed that living in tyranny was worse than dying for Liberty. They knew that through their faith in Christ, their rewards in standing for God’s gift would be certain, whether on the battle field or in Heaven.

This is not the darkest hour of our nation by far. We still live in the greatest nation in the world. A nation built upon the principles of Liberty. The principles that cry all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. A nation where all men have equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No other nation can make that claim. No other people have that birth right. But with that gift comes great responsibility to secure that Liberty for generations to come. We cannot lose hope. We cannot let Liberty slip. Because, it is not our hope, it is not our Liberty, it is the hope and Liberty of ages and millions yet unborn. We must reacquaint ourselves with the lamp of experience that gives us the courage to see a guaranteed victory. But we must also reacquaint ourselves with the Giver of that gift of Liberty and the provider of the hope of victory.

In one of the darkest moments of our history, a story is told of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Henry’s wife had been tragically and fatally burned in June of 1861. Henry, himself, was badly burned trying to put out the fire that consumed his beloved wife. He was so consumed by grief over the loss of his wife, at Christmas he wrote in his journal, “How inexpressibly sad are all holidays.” One year later, Henry wrote, “A merry Christmas’ say the children, but that is no more for me.” That following year, Henry learns that his oldest son was severely wounded in the Civil War after a bullet passed under his should blades damaging his spine. His journal was blank on Christmas on 1864. However, on Christmas day, 1865, Henry penned the words to “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day”. During one of the darkest times our nation has ever known, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow found his hope;

“I heard the bells on Christmas Day

Their old familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet

The words repeat

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And thought how, as the day had come,

The belfries of all Christendom

Had rolled along

The unbroken song

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And in despair I bowed my head;

“There is no peace on earth,” I said;

“For hate is strong,

And mocks the song

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:

“God is not dead; nor doth he sleep!

The Wrong shall fail,

The Right prevail,

With peace on earth, good-will to men!”

Henry awoke from his despair and realized that God is not dead and is still the Giver of peace and hope. He knew that God promises victory to those who trust in Christ and will stand for God’s gifts. He was able to express that hope in the phrase, “God is not dead; nor does he sleep! The Wrong shall fail; the Right prevail, With peace on earth, good-will to men!” That same promise belongs to us, the greatest nation this world has ever known. We simply must place our trust in the right place. Now that’s some hope and change I can rely on!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Predator Drone Used in Arrest of Farmer

/in /by

I have voiced my firm opposition to SB1867 because of its potential use against US citizens, I have been called an extremist, a chicken little, etc. Now multiple News sites have reported an incident that made my hair stand on end. In June of this year, a predator drone was used by local law enforcement to facilitate the arrest of a North Dakota Family.

RT reports: “This is the first time in American history that an unmanned aircraft has been used to assist police in making an arrest on US soil.” As if to assure the reader that this isn’t a misprint, the report continues with “By “drone” we do mean military reconnaissance and assault flying machine used by the US Army (sic) and the CIA, mostly abroad…To be precise, this is the same Predator drone that the US Army (sic) uses in military missions across Afghanistan, Pakistan and any other theater…”

Local law enforcement using a military drone – is this some military sci-fi novel we’re reading? Nope. Apparently DHS has been using these drones in the states for YEARS, yet this story was noticeably absent from American media sources at the time of the arrests. Sadly many people still have faith in the American media, especially if the source purports to align with their own political views. Here’s how it went:

The local Sheriff, Kelly Janke, ran into some trouble while looking for some wandering cows, six cows to be exact. Fortunately for the local sheriff, the Predator drone was returning to Grand Forks Air Base from a mission on the US/Canada border and had some fuel left, so what the hey, let’s send it to North Dakota to look for some cows. Really?

According to local reports, these cows were not alleged to be stolen, they had wandered onto the Brossart farm. According to certain local reports, Mr. Brossart believed these animals to be unclaimed and, in accordance with certain open range laws, the cattle belonged to him. When questioned in court, he answered repeatedly, that the cattle were “his property.” Because of this property dispute, legally speaking, this is now a civil matter. Yet, the Sheriff’s office served a criminal warrant to look for these cows.

When Mr. Brossart refused to honor the warrant, he was tazed and placed into custody. Mr. Brossart was not armed. Mr. Brossart’s sons also refused to honor the warrant, and told law enforcement officers to get off the property. Initial reports say the boys had long guns, and later reports claim high powered rifles. This all resulted in a standoff where no shots were fired and no one was harmed.

Now, as a former prosecutor, who has a deep respect and appreciation for law enforcement and the dangers they face, I understand the problem with people brandishing guns in the presence of officers. But it appears to me that the situation was incited by criminalizing a civil dispute. This was reasonably a civil dispute over livestock ownership which would require a review by a judge and full hearing involving all parties before property is taken. But here is the really disturbing part. The next morning, a tip to law enforcement told officers that the boys were out on tractors harvesting and were not armed. Did the officers now come to the property and attempt to serve this warrant peaceably? No, they responded with MASSIVE force.

“Next thing they knew – a mini army and a Predator B drone have been called in. State Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulance, deputy sheriffs from three other counties and a drone arrived at the scene, reports the Los Angeles Times.”

I have been involved with law enforcement as a prosecutor for nearly nine years. NEVER did I see such a display of force over a civil dispute involving “stray cows”. And what did this assault team find? Exactly what they were told, boys harvesting and no weapons and…

“A search of the property turned up four rifles, two shotguns, assorted bows and arrows and a samurai sword, according to court records. Police also found the six missing cows, valued at $6,000.”

There you have it, a small Army called out to subdue cattle rustlers who have four rifles, two shotguns, assorted bows and arrows, and a samurai sword on their 3,000-acre farm. Huh? All this over cows?

And now “the rest of the story.” Apparently, the residents of this farm are members of the Sovereign Citizens Movement, a so-called “anti-government group which the FBI considers extremist and violent,” according to the LA Times article. The primary reason for this is that Terry Nichols was a Sovereign Citizen. However, don’t forget who else DHS considers potential terrorists. Remember the report that claims veterans returning from Iraq and those who are against abortion are also “potentially violent terrorist?” Here is an excerpt:

“Rightwing extremism,” the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely…It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks.”

Take some time and read what the ADL says about the Sovereign Citizens. If you refer to yourself as a Constitutionalist, you might be a terrorist. If you believe that government governs best when it governs closest to home, you might be a terrorist. If you take issue with the 16th or 17th amendments, the Federal Reserve, Fiat money, or you believe in the Gold Standard, you might be a terrorist.

Just a week ago the crafters of the SB1867 said they could not conceive of the extraordinary powers given to DHS being used against US citizens; it only applies to “terrorists.” Now we have military drones being employed in the US in police actions against citizens. Really? How inconceivable is it for US citizens to be subjected to the extraordinary powers outlined in SB1867? I believe the purpose of SB1867 is to manipulate the people into giving permission for this abuse of power in the name of security; in the name of fighting terrorism. Are we to believe that they didn’t have this in mind when they wrote that bill?

I am reminded of a similar ploy advanced by King George III against our founders. In his defense of the British Colonies, in the name of National Security, George deployed British troops in the colonies to enforce his laws. In order to properly facilitate this military action, George and parliament passed the Quartering Act.

Whereas there may be occasion for marching and quartering of regiments and companies of his Majesty’s forces in several parts of his Majesty’s dominions in America: and whereas the publick houses and barracks, in his Majesty’s dominions in America, may not be sufficient to supply quarters for such forces…

Understand that George already had the troops in route. He already KNEW there would not be sufficient barracks to house them. There was no question in George’s mind what his intentions were, what resources were needed, and how he was to obtain them. But he could get the people and parliament to agree to this violation of our founders’ rights by softening the language and dealing with a “potential” danger. This is the same disingenuous tactic our Congress has used to perpetrate the gutting of our Bill of Rights and the destruction of our Constitution in SB1867. So, this is only for terrorists? Again, I ask you, WHO IS THE TERRORIST?

So what do we get? Not what Congress said we would get. Not the near impossibility of using this type of military force against US Citizens, but the first use of military predator drones on US Soil based upon a civil dispute over the ownership of cows. NOT against one of the many known al-Queda terrorist camps located here in the United States.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 84, quoting Justice Blackstone, gave us this very sober warning:

“To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls “the BULWARK of the British Constitution”.

This is EXACTLY what SB1867 does. Why are we so deaf to the cries of our founding fathers? Why are we like the spoiled teenager who believes he is immortal and our fathers are simple old fools who have no idea the problems we face today? They had a deep wisdom, based upon centuries of human nature and experience. We must recognize that human nature does not change; there is nothing new under the sun.

George Washington is quoted to have said: Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

This parallels Patrick Henry’s warning: The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

Now do you see why Americans are so concerned over SB1867? The 93 Senators that voted in favor of this atrocity are participating in the destruction of our Constitution and it apparently doesn’t bother them any more than it bothers the rest of America.

SB1867 Revisited (NDAA)

/in /by

On December 1, 2011 I published an article that gave a straightforward analysis of Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). There seems to be quite a bit of controversy on this matter. Some feel that the citizens who are concerned with their liberty should be dismissed as alarmist, “Chicken Littles.”

Additionally, I recently discovered congressional aides are telling people there are no worries about NDAA because Mrs. Feinstein’s Amendment, SA1456, saves the day. No, it does not. SA1456 is more political maneuvering that is full of empty language that has no real effect what-so-ever. The language states:

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

With the “Chicken Littles” and Mrs. Feinstein in mind, I would like to address just a few more points on this issue and then I am done with this subject. I am confident I have done my part to educate on the truth. Unlike the popular media today, I do not feel it is my responsibility to force anyone into my opinion. What you do with the truth, is up to you. I do feel that given what we know from history, both ancient and recent, there is cause for concern.

First, the mere fact that the provisions in question are stuffed inside a must-pass bill like NDAA, instead of standing muster on their own, is worthy of great suspicion. Take into account that every time these provisions have been presented independently, Congress has consistently denied them; case in point, “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010”.

Secondly, these bills are written by lawyers, men and women who are trained to be wordsmiths. They are trained to use just the right words to ensure that the desired effect is unavoidable. Many attorneys (including this one) have concluded that the language in these sections is not direct and clear enough to exclude US citizens. The natural conclusion is that the drafters did not want to exclude US Citizens. First of all, Constitutional rights are not granted to non-citizens. So, why the legislative gymnastics to declare that fact? If the bill is aimed at non-citizen terrorists, then the legislative gymnastics are unnecessary. The proponents of this bill argue that these sections specifically limit actions of the government to al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists involved in 9/11, that Section 1032 does not cover US citizens, and that section 1032(b)(1) specifically excludes US citizens. As an attorney, I contend that if the drafters really WANTED to exclude US Citizens, they would have used language that is common to similar legislative acts.

Here is what I mean: In section 1032(b)(1) of the NDAA, the language specifically says that, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Legally speaking, stating that an agency is “not required” to do something is the very same as saying they have the choice of doing so or not. If the drafters of this legislation truly wanted to exclude US Citizens from having their Constitutional rights stripped, the lawyers should have used the type of language found in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2), the section that contains religious exemptions for employment practices or the various religious and medical exemptions that exist from state to state for things like vaccinations.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2) establishes an exemption from prosecution for employment discrimination violations if the circumstances are based in religious governance. The language specifically states, “it shall not be an unlawful employment practice…” and then goes on to list the organizations that are exempt from the provisions of this federal law. Florida’s statute § 1002.20(3)(b), defining K-12 student and parent rights regarding immunizations states, “The parent of any child attending a public or private school shall be exempt from the school immunization requirements upon meeting any of the exemptions in accordance with the provisions of s. 1003.22(5). These provisions are very clear that these laws shall not apply to these specific segments of the population. They do not say they are not required, they say they SHALL NOT or SHALL BE EXEMPT. And neither does SA1456.

Finally, we cannot lose sight of the real issue. The federal government can never have the right to suspend the Constitutional rights of US Citizens without due process, because the government is not the source of those rights. All other argument against or for these provisions become irrelevant when there is even a possibility of US Citizens having their Constitutional rights suspended either temporarily or permanently at the discretion of the federal government.

One prominent “journalist,” attempting to refute the criticisms of concerned citizens, said that “The United States Constitution is a compact between the American people and the government they created. It endows Americans with protections against U.S.-government overreach.” In fact, the Constitution doesn’tendow citizens with anything. The founders in the Declaration of Independence clearly state that these inalienable rights are endowed by our Creator and in the words of Patrick Henry “the Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” The entire purpose of the Constitution is to protect US Citizens from an unlawful and arbitrary government. This bill clearly leans in the opposite direction and this is something every citizen should be concerned about.

Congress Decides Constitution is a Threat to National Security (NDAA)

/in /by

The principles of habeas corpus and due process extend as far back as 12th century England. These principles were among the most fearfully guarded liberties among America’s founders.   If truth be told it was abuses of due process and an unresponsive government (not simply burdensome taxes) that were the primary causes of the American Revolution. Notice the words of these distinguished Americans:

Ø “Trial by jury in civil causes…trial by jury in criminal causes, [and] the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus…all stand on the same footing; they are the common rights of Americans.” ~Richard Henry Lee

Ø “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:  For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences” ~Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson

Ø “The founders of our nation considered the right of trial by jury…an important bulwark against tyranny and corruption, a ‘safeguard too precious to be left to the whim of the sovereign.” ~Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 1979

Yet, here we are today in the midst of a startling attack on some of our most fundamental liberties.   As I write this, our Senate debates a bill that will undermine the very due process rights that thousands of brave souls have bled and died for.

Senate Bill 1867, also known as the National Defense Authorization Act, is the means by which Congress funds the military and is therefore a “must pass bill.”  No politician wants to be the one who voted to defund the military, especially if you are a so-called conservative.   Those who would be disposed to usurp the Liberties of this land take these must pass bills and convert them into Trojan horses.  This particular Trojan horse puts the due process rights of American citizens in serious jeopardy through sections 1031 and 1032.

Sections 1031 and 1032 of this bill are completely unrelated to the funding of the military.  These sections, we are told, will ‘save us from terrorists’.  The plan is to remove the Constitutional right of habeas corpus and persons deemed to be terrorists will be detained indefinitely, out of the country.  The built-in premise is that the right of habeas corpus is somehow a threat to national security. 

Who wouldn’t want to stop terrorists? Don’t we all want to be safe?  Aren’t terrorist the very demons we should be fighting today?  If you don’t support this bill you are a terrorist sympathizer.

Am I a terrorist sympathizer simply because I believe that you shouldn’t have to circumvent the Constitution to do your job? Particularly considering the very job description these Congressmen swore to do was to “support and defend the Constitution.”   It is mindboggling that those with the power and responsibility to PROTECT LIBERTY are the very ones who will justify its destruction.  Here are the arguments put forth in favor of these dangerous provisions:

1.       These Sections Specifically Limit Actions Of The Government To Al-Qaeda And Taliban Terrorists Involved In 9/11

False.  This refers to sec. 1031(b) Covered Persons: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed , or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition forces…

I suppose all would be well, if this were the end of this section.  However, the devil is always in the details.  Attorneys are trained to look for loopholes, and those who wrote this bill were attorneys, so they are either ignorant or inserting holes to provide doors for future activity.  Door No. 1:

…including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Belligerent act? There you have it, the open door to include just about anyone.  Now don’t think these words are not well planned and don’t for one minute assume you know their definitions.  Remember John McCain and Joe Leiberman’s  “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010”?  This act failed, but that has not stopped John McCain.  This Enemy Belligerent Act defines a Belligerent as: an individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent…an individual who: 1) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or 2) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”  Hostilities? And the door swings wide open.

Next argument:

2.       Section 1032 Does Not Cover US Citzens.

False.  Section 1032(2) states that the requirement to detain an individual applies to someone who has been determined to be “a member of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda: and to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”

Sounds pretty limiting right?  Well, here’s Door No. 2, section (4) “The Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta) may, in consultation with the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) and the Director of National Intelligence (James R. Clapper), waive the requirements of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.”

There you have it. All limitations fly out the window if the government  determines a “national security interest”.  But those that planted these loopholes are not finished.

The next argument alleges:

3.       Section 1032(b)(1) Specifically Excludes US Citizens

False.  Section 1032(b)(1) states “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”  Is this the part that is supposed to stop the government from detaining US Citizens?  Any decent attorney would tell you that the “prohibitive language” in this statement is a bit ambiguous.  What this section says is the REQUIREMENT to detain doesn’t extend to US Citizens.  That means they don’t have to detain them, but what if they want to!  Open Door No. 3, let all who enter beware!

All this sounds a bit alarmist right?  Why do I think the language is cleverly crafted to be more than it appears?  Because those who support this bill do not WANT to protect the liberty of US Citizens.  They will, when cornered with the truth, tell you that any US Citizens who is involved with terrorists “DOES NOT deserve Constitutional rights.”  The idea that US Citizens do not deserve their Constitutional rights is a very frightening statement.  But put that in conjunction with the understanding that it is the government, specifically this current administration, that gets to CHOOSE which citizens do not deserve their Constitutional rights.

Still sounds alarmist right? After all we are talking about terrorists.  So you don’t like terrorist?  I don’t either.  But I do love Liberty and I do fear the power of unlimited government.  And what happens when the government determines you to fit the definition of a terrorist?  Janet Napolatano says that soldiers returning from Iraq and those who oppose abortion fit the bill. Which US Citizens DO YOU think should not have protections under the Constitution? Which one of our rights is a threat to national security and need to be curtailed or eliminated?  Remember William Pitt’s words, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.   It is the argument of tyrants.  It is the creed of slaves.”

Terrorism is real and we must combat it. But you cannot have peace without Liberty!  According to Benjamin Franklin, “Anyone who would trade Liberty for temporary security deserves neither Liberty nor security”. He specifically said, “temporary security” because he knew that being “safe” is a fleeting feeling.  You may think trading just a small piece of Liberty today is worth feeling safe.  However, tomorrow safety will fly away when a bigger boogey man turns the corner.  Then will you be willing to trade a little more? Remember, the funny thing about temporarily giving anything to the government is that you don’t get it back and they always want more.  Two words: Income Tax.

John Adams stated in his inaugural address in 1797, if “our Government can be influenced by foreign nations by flattery or menaces, by fraud or violence, by terror or intrigue the Government may not be the choice of the American People, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations that govern us and not we the people who govern ourselves.”  He was telling us that when the government operates under the motivating factor of fear, those that scare us rule us.  He continued with his warning by saying, “If we are to have a free republican government we must have an attachment to the Constitution and a conscientious determination to support it.”  Our only hope of Liberty, our only hope of peace, is through the Constitution, not by circumventing it.

Congress took an oath to PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; they did not take an oath to defeat terrorism.  They must stick with their oath; because, the principles in the Constitution do not change; the definition of terrorist apparently changes based on political ideology.

Ronald Reagan called America the last bastion of hope.  He was remembering a statement by Daniel Webster, “Hold onto the Constitution and to the republic for which she stands.  Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6000 years may never happen again.  Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”  Our Congress has an obligation to us, an obligation to our children, and an obligation to the world.

We must stand for Liberty today or our children will bow tomorrow.  I stand with Patrick Henry when he said, “Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

Giving Thanks for America

/in , /by

Our daughter graduated from a liberal arts college in Maryland.  One day she contacted me amused by the subject matter of some of her liberal arts classes.  We began discussing one of her history classes where some time was spent “learning” about our founding fathers.  What she learned about the founders was all focused on the flaws of these men; whether based in fact or revisionist history.  This teaching reflects the popular view, shared by many university professors and school teachers across America, that America is no different than any other nation on the globe…that our nation is “fundamentally flawed,” after all, look at the flawed men that built it.

For example, what my daughter remembers about Alexander Hamilton, one of the primary founders of this nation, is that he was a womanizer.  Not only a womanizer, explains her feminist professor, but a hypocrite at that.  After all, how could a man who is free to have affairs with other men’s wives feel that his sense of morality is at stake over a duel with Aaron Burr?  These questionable accounts are all too typical in America’s classrooms and textbooks.  I have read the same type of story about George Washington, claiming a torrid affair with his married friend Sally Fairfax.  Most credible sources will tell you that is a terrible lie.

I am not trying to give the founders some divine status or even suppose them a level of perfection that they did not have.  We must understand that our nation was not founded upon people, but upon principles. The people that gave us our exceptional American principles were flawed vessels just like you and me.  However, the really amazing part of this history is that flawed men understood that the foundation of an enduring nation must be liberty moored in morality.    Consider these words by Alexander Hamilton:

Equal pains have been taken to deprave the morals as to extinguish the religion of the country [France], if indeed morality in a community can be separated from religion…The pious and moral weep over these scenes as a sepulcher destined to entomb all they revere and esteem.

The politician who loves liberty sees them with regret as a gulf that may swallow up the liberty to which he is devoted.  He knows that morality overthrown (and morality must fall with religion), the terrors of despotism can alone curb the impetuous passions of man, and confine him within the bounds of social duty. (emphasis original)
The Stand, No. III (April 7, 1798)

Our founders knew that Liberty is a combination of two equally important parts – it is FREEDOM under the constraints of MORAL LAW.  Liberty cannot survive where there is pure freedom.  Pure freedom gives man the right to do whatever is right in his own mind: cheat, lie, rob, murder.  Pure freedom is anarchy.  At the same time, Liberty cannot survive with moral law alone.  Moral law not mingled with freedom is theocracy.  Theocracy in the hands of men is tyranny in the name of religion.  Our founders attempted give us this balance and secure the blessings of liberty for us in our founding documents.  When we abandon our founding documents and disregard our moral foundations, liberty is in peril.

Thomas Jefferson gave us this warning, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?”

While Benjamin Franklin warned America’s founders directly:

“In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection…. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of Superintending Providence in our favor…have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?…. God Governs in the affairs of men And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

Patrick Henry said “Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

As an exceptional nation built upon exceptional principles, we cannot deny that we are built with a foundational understanding of an exceptional God.  Thomas Jefferson reminds us that, “We are not in a world ungoverned by the laws and the power of a Superior Agent. Our efforts are in His hand, and directed by it; and He will give them their effect in His own time.”

Because of our historical understanding that our nation was built on the principles of freedom and morality, America has always been the haven of rest when tyrants oppress their own. She is the vineyard of innovation and opportunity.   This is the nation that opens its arms to the tired, to the poor, to the oppressed, to the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.  No other nation can claim this legacy, no other people has this birthright. This is the shining city upon a hill, and we cannot hide our light under a bush.

The focus of our education should not be on the flaws of the men who gave us this nation, but on the exceptional nation that they gave us.  We have an exceptional nation where “all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.”  A nation birthed by the principle that the power of the government is to be held BY the people and not where the government holds power OVER the people.  A nation that believes the principle that says all are free to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, and all are equally free, “Jews, Turks, pagans, AND Christians.”   A nation that has prospered based on the principle that ideas and hard work open the door to prosperity regardless of bloodline, skin color or social status.  A nation that has remained free based on the principle that liberties remain secure by maintaining the right to defend self, property, and Liberty.

In the profound words of Daniel Webster, “Is our Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with evolution and tumult, riot and despotism.”~ An Anniversary Address by Daniel Webster July 4th 1806

So in this time of Thanksgiving, let us maintain a true focus on what is important.  In this day it is so popular to denigrate America for every little flaw.  Why not take back a bit of American Exceptionalism?  Why not embrace what makes us different from every other nation on the globe?  America is an exceptional nation because we are built on exceptional principles.  Principles of Liberty, freedom, morality, and equality as derived from our Creator.

May God continue to bless this America, established upon the principles of Liberty.

The Divine Right of Obama

/in /by

In the finest tradition of tyrannical Kings from whom the people wrestled liberty throughout history, President Obama has declared ultimate executive power. On Monday to an audience in Nevada, Obama said, “I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress…”

This is nothing new for Obama, nor is it new in the struggle for Liberty. In 1213 Archbishop Stephen Langton stood with the 1100 Charter of Liberties in hand and boldly resisted the tyrannical actions of King John I. Two years later, in 1215, the Magna Carta was born, and a group of 25 barons sowed the seeds of representative government.

The idea that the people could somehow restrain the power of the King, through representation and a written declaration, was an affront to the King. The King believed it was his God-given right to dictate to the ignorant masses what was best for them. The Kings, in fact, believed that documents like the 1100 Charter of Liberties, the Magna Carta and the Grand Remonstrance were “fundamentally flawed.”

Fortunately, the people knew that Liberty was a fundamental gift from God and they stood against tyranny and gained greater protections with each successive battle, all the way from 1100 through 1776 and beyond. This has been a continual struggle. From King John, to King Charles I, to King George III the tyrants continued to ignore the foundational documents of liberty and disband the parliament when the King’s personal whims were not served.

The current American executive from his castle in Washington, D.C. is apparently asserting his own Divine Right to shape the nation according to his will. His assertion that he will, in effect, enact legislation “without Congress” is a de facto dismissal of the Legislative branch in the finest tradition of Charles I.

Charles dismissed his first two Parliaments under Royal Prerogative during the Eleven Years Tyranny. He continually imposed forced taxes on the people without the consent of parliament and began to dictate in the area of religious liberty. He dismissed the third Parliament who opposed his inclination to fund his unilateral military engagements. Charles ultimately lost his head and his reign of tyranny came to an end.

There was a reason for the sweeping defeat in the 2010 elections. We put representatives in office who would be a roadblock to the destructive policies that have steamrolled their way over liberty and prosperity in America. King Obama is once again lawlessly sidestepping the people’s roadblocks. Your Highness, trespassing is only tolerated for so long! We will end your reign of tyranny in the ballot box of 2012!