Forloveofgodandcountry's Blog

by Diane Rufino, April 13, 2010

Young adults often wonder what their rights are in the public school system with respect to religion. On the one hand there is the First Amendment right to religion itself (free exercise and the freedom from being forced to belong to a religion established by Congress), and then there are a plurality of Supreme Court decisions which have interpreted the First Amendment, there are the views of religious groups and atheist groups, and then finally there are anti-religion “watch” groups which are ever vigilante to make sure that religion (in any form) is not brought up in schools or in any other public/government-sponsored activity. And then caught in the middle of all this are the children themselves who have Constitutional first amendment rights but don’t know what they are and what they are entitled to. They rely on the school to look after their rights and they are often advised, or pressured, by parents who have strong religious views. But as our schools become diversified and as our society places a greater emphasis on diversity and a progressive new social order, there appears to be a concerted effort to maintain neutrality in classrooms on a number of areas, most notably religion. Schools cannot be seen as promoting one religion over another or showing preference to one religion over another. Students cannot be made to feel that their particular religion is inferior or is not respected. Neutrality seems to be the key.

But have we gone too far ?? Don’t you think that a country that was founded on certain religious principles has a right and an obligation to honor those principles and promote those principles? Isn’t there an obligation to educate our children about our underlying values and the religious foundations for our laws? Isn’t it simply an exercise in patriotism? We all sit back and enjoy our freedoms but do we truly understand where they come from and how they are protected? Essentially, our rights are integrally related to something as simple as our official national motto: “In God We Trust.” Yes, it comes down to religion and the acknowledgement of a God. Have we forgotten the words of our Charter of Freedom: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….” The Declaration is not a difficult document to read or understand. In our country, a man is born free and equal not because the government says so but because the government is forbidden to declare otherwise. Our Constitution forbids it to do so.

Look how the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution fit together. First, the Declaration proclaims to the world that in the United States we acknowledge that there is a God – a “Creator” – who supersedes any government and whose intention it is that all men are to live free and to reap the benefits of such freedom. If all men are bestowed with innate liberties, then all men must be on equal footing and therefore are equal. The Declaration then states: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..” This statement outlines the very purpose of our Constitution — “To secure our rights.” (To secure the rights that God has bestowed upon us). And finally comes our obligation to protect this very special arrangement — “governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The federal government is a creation of We the People. It gets its “just” powers from us. The dictionary defines “just” as “morally right and fair.” If we aren’t “just,” then our government will not be “just.” Our republic is simple. As human beings, we have been gifted a magnificent brain and reasoning powers (gifts that have still not “evolved” in other species) and the freedoms to develop those gifts to the fullest. Our lives are to be defined by how well we develop our gifts and how ambitious we are in furthering those pursuits. Our government is charged with protecting our freedoms so that we can enjoy Life and pursue Happiness (which includes property and intellectual property, or career). To make sure that our government does just that, our Founders tied the government intimately with those who have the greatest interest in liberty – “We the People.” We are the keepers of the government. We are the watchdogs of our own liberties. We send the people who run government, we determine its character, we determine its policies, we determine whether it runs as it should, we determine whether it adheres to our Constitution, and we determine whether it follows that one true formula that can assure that our liberties will be protected and our country will stand the test of time. That formula includes God. It always has. And our children need to learn this as future guardians of their liberty.

Some of our most aggressive anti-religion activists want their cake and eat it too. They want the complete freedom to speak and express themselves but they want a country without God. They want to bash our country and bash God with the very rights that God has provided them. They fight hard to remove any mention of God or religion in public life by exercising rights legally recognized as coming from our Creator. They bite the hand that feeds them. They want the life-giving milk that the cow produces but they want to kill the cow. Newt Gingrich once said: “”I think a country which was founded on the premise that our rights come from our Creator has some right to decide that our Creator can appear in public life.”

Constitutional law is a fascinating area of law. In looking at any one part of the Constitution, I like to understand why it was written and I like to look into the historical context for those reasons. History never occurs in a vacuum. I will not accept a liberal or progressive explanation because I know the intentions are only to evolve our country into something that history has already weighed in judgment on. Progressives might wish to consult Machiavelli, who once wrote: “Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results.” The problem with ignoring history is that each time history repeats itself, the price goes up. We are the last best hope for freedom in the world and we can’t jeopardize what we stand for. A review of history is therefore crucial.

English settlers came to America starting in the mid-16th century. First they came for exploratory and economic reasons (they wanted to set up settlements to expand trade). Immediately after that, they came to escape religious persecution and to exercise their religion openly and without government oppression. We remember learning about the lost colony of Roanoke. In 1585, Sir Walter Raleigh tried to establish a colony called Roanoke in the land which the British named “Virginia,” – in honor of Queen Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen. The site was actually an island on North Carolina’s eastern seaboard protected by the greater Outer Bank islands. This bit of history hits home for me because the Outer Banks, a popular vacation spot, is not far from my home. The Roanoke colony was a settlement for exploratory purposes. Unfortunately, when the second group of settlers came 20 years later, they could find no trace of the Roanoke colonists or colony. The fate of our earliest settlers – this “Lost Colony” – has never been explained.

The second group of settlers, like the first, also came for economic reasons. They were the settlers, led by Captain John Smith, who came to Virginia in 1606 and established the historic colony of Jamestown – for King James. This was the great American story were learned about as children and was even the subject of a successful Disney movie. Captain Smith had chartered the colony through the Virginia Company, sponsored by King James, who wanted to start colonizing and establishing trade with the new world. Although settlers immediately built homes and tried to farm the land, by the first winter, so many had died off that only 32 remained. It was only through the help of the local Indians, especially Chief Powhatan’s daughter Pocahontas, whose friendship and gifts of food, helped the settlers survive.

Then came the settlers who came to America’s shores to escape religious persecution. Up until the 1500’s, England was predominantly a Catholic nation. In the 1534, under King Henry VIII, England broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and created a new church, a ‘reformed” catholic church, which it called the Church of England (or the Anglican Church of England). The church was “reformed” in that it was influenced by doctrinal philosophies of the Protestant Reformation. Everyone in England was required to belong to the Anglican Church. Disagreements over the ideals and governance of the Church, including the extent the Church still resembled the Catholic church, led a number of “Separatist” groups to form. They felt that they Church had not finished the work of Reformation and therefore wanted to break away or formally separate. These included the Puritans, Pilgrims and strict separatists. The differed according to the extent to which they believed the Church of England needed to “reform.” The strict separatists thought the Church was beyond reform and therefore could not be salvaged. Separatists were hunted down and imprisoned.

1n 1608, a man named William Bradford, who headed up a group of Separatists called Pilgrims, got word that he would be imprisoned and so he and others in his group picked up and moved to Holland, where there was greater religious tolerance. After several tough years working as a farmer (his trade back in England), he got the idea of leaving Holland and starting a settlement in the New World so they could practice their religion as they wanted. He approached the Virginia Company and asked for permission to do so. He was granted a patent and Charter (a land grant accompanied by rules on how to run the colony, just as a Charter runs charter schools) and in 1620, 102 Pilgrims set out on the Mayflower to the New World. The patent was granted for a colony in Virginia – somewhere north of Jamestown – but the ship encountered rough seas and was blown off course. The Pilgrims eventually landed in Plymouth Harbor, and as history has recorded, they stepped off the ship onto Plymouth rock (which today is nothing more than a large granite rock about the size of a young boy). Plymouth Colony was very successful and quickly paved the way for other groups of separatists to make the voyage for religious freedom.

In 1630, John Winthrop secured a patent and charter and led a group of Puritan settlers to New England, where they established the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Boston would become its capital. The Bay Colony and Plymouth Colony would soon establish the commonwealth of Massachusetts. While still on board their ship, the Arbella, John Winthrop delivered a stirring sermon that was so powerful that parts of it were later used in speeches by President John F. Kennedy and President Ronald Reagan. In order to remind his fellow Puritan passengers of the special purpose which guided them to settle in a new land, he said: “The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as his own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of his wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with…. For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”

It was no wonder that religious freedom was on the minds of our Founding Fathers. And it is no wonder that the right to exercise one’s religion freely without coercion from the government was the first of our fundamental rights as listed in the Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers considered themselves proud Englishmen and not “Americans,” which was really a derogatory term used by the British to refer to the colonists, and so England’s history was incorporated into our founding documents, including its limitations and failures.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” There are actually two distinct clauses which make guarantee our freedom of religion. The first clause, the Establishment Clause, prohibits the government (“Congress”) from passing legislation to establish an official “national” religion. The second clause, the Free Exercise Clause, prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s practice of their religion (except when it involves illegal conduct). The First Amendment was straightforward and it meant exactly what it said. The words were chosen very carefully, as a review of the transcript of the debate surrounding the First Amendment in our First Congress in 1789 shows. Many versions were proposed but Congress decided to go with Madison’s version, which was modeled after the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, Draft for a Bill to Establish Religious Freedom in Virginia (1779), which was written by Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was so proud of crafting the model law for religious freedom in the colonies which led to the First Amendment that when considering his legacy, he requested that his epitaph simply read: “Author of the Declaration of Independence and of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom & Father of the University of Virginia.”

It is abundantly clear from Madison’s version and other versions of the amendment on religious freedom that the United States would be a land where people could worship freely and where the government would never do what they did in England – establish one national religion. The new government would not establish a religion, would not prefer one, and would not compel citizens to worship contrary to conscience. These rights are individual rights, not granted to a particular religion, but instead to citizens directly.

The States, however, would be free to regulate as they seemed fit. In other words, if they wanted to allow a Puritan community, that was their right, as a sovereign state. After all, if individuals didn’t want to be associated with Puritans, they were able to move to another community, or move to another colony or state. But that all changed with the 14th Amendment, which was passed as one of the Civil Rights Amendments on 1768. The US Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to States and as I’ll explain with Everson v. Board of Education, it specifically applied federal prohibitions to the states with respect to religion. Up until 1897, the Bill of Rights was a list of prohibitions only upon the federal government. Only the federal government could not burden these fundamental individual rights.

Contrary to what most people believe the 14 Amendment provides, the amendment was passed for a very limited purpose. The first clause is the one that we most frequently associate with the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The first line in the first clause legislatively nullified the infamous Dred Scott decision. While Dred Scott held that blacks could not be citizens and hence were not entitled to any protection under the Constitution, this line now declared that blacks are citizens. The first clause of the second line is referred to as the “Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment” and it prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without proper legal steps being taken to ensure fairness. It is this clause that the Supreme Court has used to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the States. The last clause of the second sentence is the “Equal Protection Clause” that is at the center of almost all civil rights cases. It requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people. That is, each state must apply laws equally to all classes of persons. Again, the 14th Amendment was passed for specific purposes. It was a Civil Rights amendment, intended to remedy the wrongs done to blacks first by way of slavery (Dred Scott) and then by way of the southern states once slaves were freed to prevent them from assimilating as free and equal citizens – including the Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, etc. The 14th Amendment was intended only to acknowledge that blacks were now citizens and to make sure that no state tried to deny them rights of citizenship.

Although the Bill of Rights was intended by our Founders to apply only to the federal government, by the very end of the 19th century, the Supreme Court began to use the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to “incorporate” certain of the Bill of Rights upon the States. As the Court reasoned, if the 14th Amendment provides that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property…..” and if there are certain liberties that are “so firmly rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,” then these “firmly-rooted liberties” (ie, certain rights embodied in the Bill of Rights) must also be protected from abuse by the States. [Grisold v. Connecticut, pp. 413-414]. The first such right was the one embodied in the “Takings Clause” of the 5th Amendment (protection against the taking of property for a public purpose without just compensation) in 1897 and then was the Sixth Amendment’s right to a trial by jury. In 1947, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). It was a simple case brought in Ewing Township, NJ, where school districts are funded by taxpayer dollars, which asked the question whether school reimbursements could be used by parents to send their children to private religious schools. Mr. Everson, a taxpayer of Ewing Township, alleged that this practice violated the First Amendment and amounted to the township endorsing and supporting religion. The Supreme Court held that the reimbursements did not violate the Constitution, for parents had the “choice” and were not forced to send their children where they wanted.

While the Justices were able to reach the ultimate decision about the reimbursements, they took the occasion to make a sharp statement on the interpretation of the First Amendment. Basically, the decision, written by Justice Hugo Black (a former ranking member of the KKK appointed to the Court by FDR) declared that the First Amendment required a sharp and clear separation between government (of which public education is a function) and religion. Black wrote that there must be a “Wall of Separation” between Church and State. Although it could be argued that Hugo Black lifted this phrase from the Klansman Creed which, after the KKK resurfaced again in the 1920’s, demanded a “Wall of Separation between Church and State” in order to prevent the growing Catholic population from inserting their views in politics, Black managed to cite a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1801 to the Danbury Baptist Association which included that phrase.

In that letter to the Danbury Baptists, who had written Jefferson because of religious persecution they were suffering, our distinguished third president sought to console them by assuring that the First Amendment would always prevent a formal establishment of one religion over another. Jefferson wrote: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” It should be noted that in Supreme Court jurisprudence, a letter is not appropriate authority. It is not in the list of the types of appropriate authority on which to base a decision.

And yet, Justice Black wrote in Everson: “In the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’……. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” It can be easily argued that no metaphor in any American letter has had a more profound influence on law and on policy than this letter by Thomas Jefferson. It can be argued that the United States effectively became a secular society with the Everson decision and its subsequent related cases. Can we imagine what the self-proclaimed “Founder of Religious Freedom” would say if he knew that a phrase in a single letter effectively removed religion from public life, for it was always his opinion that “Free Exercise” was the more important of the clauses? His own conduct is a testament to his views. He used government funding to establish a church in the Congress building which he attended every Sunday but would not establish national days of fasting, observations, etc because that would amount to a government establishment of one particular religion.

Nevertheless, Everson’s strongly-worded opinion paved the way for a series of later Supreme Court decisions that, taken together, brought about profound changes in legislation, public education, and other policies involving matters of religion. Many believe the Everson case undertook a “new” interpretation of the First Amendment and such Chief Justices of the Supreme Court as William Rehnquist (1986-2005) and our current Chief Justice John Roberts (2005-) believe the decision was an exercise of judicial overreaching and should be overturned. This may actually indicate the new direction of the Supreme Court. Chief Justices immediately following Chief Justice Vinson (1946-1953), whose court decided Everson, continued to interpret the First Amendment as it applied to states and localities. Under Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953- 1969), the Supreme Court decided cases which prohibited prayer in school and then prohibited the reading of the Bible in schools. Under Chief Justice Warren Burger (1969-1986), the Supreme Court showed a much more relaxed view of religion as it relates to public functions. For example, his court allowed some degree of religious expression and religious displays as long as it didn’t amount to an “excessive entanglement” of the government with religion and it defended the rights of religious minorities, as it did for the Amish (allowing the Amish community to take their children out of public school after age 16 so they can learn the ways of their community; it was a narrow exclusion because the Amish are such productive, law-abiding citizens). [The Court, however, wasn’t as relaxed in other areas. It was the Burger Court which decided the case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, which endorsed forced bussing as an acceptable remedy to end desegregation in public schools].

Following the Everson decision, the ACLU found its niche in championing those cases challenging religion. The ACLU finished the job that Everson sought to accomplish.

Today schools take their cues from progressive organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center which are happy to “train” teachers on how to exercise neutrality in their classrooms. For example, on the topic of religion, the SPLC quickly offers a statement of religion promoted by both the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Humanist Association: “The separation of church and state is a complex issue, one with which our nation’s courts and citizenry continue to grapple. In public schools, however, it essentially boils down to a single rule: Don’t promote a specific religion, show favoritism for one faith over another, or even promote religion in general over atheism. Teaching students about diverse faiths and their influences on societies and cultures is constitutional, indoctrinating students or encouraging them to participate in faith activities is not.” It is clear what that first organization stands for, but are you familiar with the American Humanist Association? According to their website, this is what the AHA stands for: “We strive to bring about a progressive society where being good without gods is an accepted way to live life. We are accomplishing this through our defense of civil liberties and secular governance, by our outreach to the growing number of people without traditional religious faith, and through a continued refinement and advancement of the humanist worldview.” They are advancing their agenda on many fronts. For one, this anti-American activist group is trying to remove the word “God” from our national motto. [They want our Congressmen to vote “NO” to House Resolution 13, which would reaffirm the official motto of the United States as “In God We Trust”]. You have to ask yourselves: Are these the types of organizations that are best to advise our teachers who thereby captivate and control the minds of our students?

These groups who cherish their right to follow and speak their conscience don’t even realize that the minute that God (our “Creator”) is removed from our collective national conscience, then our fundamental rights cease to be “inalienable” and become “privileges” from the government. Privileges are at the mercy and discretion of the government. The government will be free to deny and regulate these privileges all day long.

Back to education, we all know from reading the news that schools are often under scrutiny by those groups and those families who don’t approve of what they may feel is religious indoctrination or religious preference and they often face legal challenges by the ACLU or any other legal group. At first, the offending school may receive a “cease and desist” letter from the ACLU, or other group, which will cite the conduct that is challenged as potentially unconstitutional and then give the school usually 30 days to comply. If the school does not, then the next step is the initiation of a lawsuit. The school will avoid this at all costs because of federal legislation that was enacted about 30 years ago – the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976 – which provides that attorneys successfully suing federal, state, or local governments for violations of constitutional or civil rights are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees from the government (the defendant; the party being sued). School systems don’t have the money to respond to any alleged infraction and so they will abide by the cease and desist letter. Equally important, schools don’t wish to be seen as showing bias or denying minority students any civil rights. Therefore, from a school’s perspective, it is very important that teachers know the law and remain in compliance so that school systems don’t face any legal challenges which may burden their very limited funding. Because of this hyper-fear of litigation and somehow offending one single individual, schools will side with caution and take that approach that maintains complete neutrality and denies students their rightful first amendment religious rights. Because of this hyper fear of litigation, schools are willing to sell their souls to the Devil and receive training by those groups who have an agenda that includes the erosion of our very fundamental liberties.

References:
“Maintain Tolerance,” Teaching Tolerance, A Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Referenced at: http://www.tolerance.org/activity/maintain-neutrality

“Keep it Academic,” Teaching Tolerance, A Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Referenced at: http://www.tolerance.org/activity/keep-it-academic

The US Constitution

American History Timeline, History Timelines. Referenced at: http://www.history-timelines.org.uk/events-timelines/14-american-history-timeline.htm

John Winthrop Calls Massachusetts Bay Colony ‘a City upon a Hill’,” History Tools. Referenced at: http://www.historytools.org/sources/winthrop-charity.pdf

First Amendment, Cornell University Law School. Referenced at: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment

Timeline of the Justices, The Supreme Court Historical Society. Referenced at: http://www.supremecourthistory.org/history-of-the-court/

Everson v. Board of Education, 33 U.S. 1 (1947), Cornell University Law School. Referenced at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0330_0001_ZS.html

Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, the Founders Constitution: Amendment 1 (Religion). Referenced at: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions58.html

Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, stephenjaygould.org. Referenced at: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_dba.html

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), Cornell University Law School. Referenced at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZD.html

by Diane Rufino, April 26, 2011

People don’t like the healthcare bill for many reasons – such as its cost, its mandate to buy insurance, its centralization of power in Washington, and its likelihood to bankrupt the country. But Dr. C.L. Gray, founder of Physicians for Reform, perhaps gives us the best reason of all to be mistrustful of it and its architects. Under the guise of “healthcare for everyone,” Obama and his healthcare advisors have in fact adopted a progressive rationed care approach – the kind that is limited by resources which are needed elsewhere. Patient-centered healthcare is becoming a thing of the past. Dr. Gray gave two presentations in Greenville, NC, last week (April 20-21) and appeared on Henry Hinton’s “Talk of the Town” radio show, and his message was widely embraced. It was embraced because it made sense.

With great stealth and determination, our government has seen fit to take over healthcare and remove power and control over healthcare decisions from the doctor and patient to beaurocrats in Washington DC. A humanistic approach has quietly given way to a cold and calculated approach. The once-private equation now includes the government and the needs of OTHERS. Decisions about human worth and dignity are made in our nation’s capital by people who don’t think like you, who don’t know you, who could care less about you, and only know you as a list of notes and dates and as a member of a “category.” What is happening is a fundamental shift in the perceived role of the physician in our society – from one who “preserves life and health” and who acts “in purity and according to divine law” to “benefit patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and to do no harm” (Hippocratic oath) to one who is an agent of the federal government, serving its collective goals. The shift is from an intrinsic view of ethics to a utilitarian or consequentialist view of ethics. The former looks to the intrinsic value of each human being and has its roots in religion. Actions are judged to be inherently good or evil. The latter, on the other hand, disregards religious principles and “good and bad” is no longer evaluated according to moral views but rather according to “consequences” (usefulness or utility). If a policy works towards the collective good, then it is moral or “good” according to the “utilitarian” view of ethics. After all, the ends must justify the means.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist chosen by President Obama as a special advisor to the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for health policy, has written about his views. In 2008, he wrote in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA): “A ‘perfect storm’ occurs when a confluence of many factors or events—no one of which alone is particularly devastating—creates a catastrophic force. Over time and through disconnected events, US healthcare has evolved into a ‘perfect storm’ that drives overutilization and increases the cost of health care. The US spends substantially more per person on healthcare than any other country, and yet health outcomes are the same as or worse than those in other countries.” (JAMA, Vol. 299, 2008). To cut costs, he supports and defends limiting funding for the elderly. As he wrote in another medical journal, The Lancet: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; Every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.” (Lancet, Vol 373, Jan. 31, 2009). He says doctors take the Hippocratic oath too seriously. He doesn’t believe that doctors should “do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others.” (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

Emanuel also advocates “The Complete Lives System” as a means to ration care. This system would reserve the most aggressive treatment for individuals 15-40 (the most productive human beings): “We recommend an alternative system – The Complete lives system—which prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life… Youngest-first. When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” This would explain the $5 billion cut in Medicare services and it would explain the new Medicare provision, issued by the 2010 winter recess-appointed Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

To understand where healthcare is headed, look to the recent case of Barbara Wagner in Oregon. As Dr. Gray explains in his presentations: “The powerful story of Barbara Wagner demonstrates why this discussion (of rationed healthcare) is of utmost importance.” Barbara Wagner, a 62-year-old woman, was diagnosed with lung cancer and after treatment with chemotherapy, the cancer went into remission. When it reappeared in the spring of 2008, her doctor told her it would likely kill her. Her last hope, the doctor advised, was an aggressive treatment with a new and promising lung-cancer drug called Tarceva (erlotinib). The problem was that it cost 4,000-a-month. Barbara’s healthcare carrier, Oregon’s state run health plan, denied the potentially life altering drug because they did not feel it was “cost-effective.” In fact, the health plan sent her a letter, denying coverage for the medication, but instead, offering to pay for physician-assisted suicide. As Barbara Wagner told ABC News, ” I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the (suicide) pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won’t give you the medication to live.”

How can this happen in America – the most resourceful and prosperous nation on Earth, you ask? Dr. Gray is not surprised. He writes: “The answer is simple. Oregon state officials controlled the process of healthcare decision-making—not Barbara and her physician. Chemotherapy would cost the state $4,000 every month she remained alive; the drugs for physician-assisted suicide held a one-time expense of less than $100. Barbara’s treatment plan boiled down to accounting.” Dr. Gray had already spent years watching the trend in the medical field move from the intrinsic value approach.

There is no doubt that significant changes in our health care system are inevitable and needed. The changes that are ahead of us will unfortunately change the lives of the elderly, disabled, chronically sick, terminally ill, and those people with serious health problems such as cancer. These populations share in common.. To advisors like Emanuel, they are expensive and their lives are not valued. This is a Godless approach, which is exactly what a society would expect when it gradually turns its back on God and takes him out of society and public life. Human life is no longer sacred and valued. There once was a time where our nation believed that all human beings were valued by our Creator. Now, humans are viewed in terms of social and economic problems.

There is a reason why healthcare in the US has become “a perfect storm and it certainly isn’t a good enough reason for the government to take control over the entire healthcare field. Our spiraling healthcare costs (healthcare crisis) is the result of two things, and Dr. Gray speaks clearly to this: (1) Preventative medicine (which is what doctors NEED to do in order to limit the number of medical malpractice claims and cases against him) and (2) “Third Party Payor Syndrome” (where people have all possible tests done and medicine prescribed, without caring about cost, because “my insurance will cover it”). Doctors are so worried about frivolous lawsuits that they order unnecessary, and expensive, tests and procedures for their patients. They know that, for the most part, such tests and procedures are really not necessary. Defensive medicine is practiced by almost all doctors. The costs of litigation and defensive medicine, as well as the exorbitant costs of medical malpractice insurance, are passed on to the patient in the price of health care. Furthermore, the costs of malpractice insurance often preclude doctors, and certainly medical specialists, from opening up medical practices in rural counties.

The key to meaningful reform and lower medical costs is tort reform. The courtroom is where patients should seek compensation for negligent medical care but it shouldn’t be the place where lawyers are enriched first and foremost. Frivolous and wasteful litigation against doctors increases the overall costs of health care for patients and already costs Americans billions of dollars annually. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, 40% of medical malpractice suits filed in the U.S. are “without merit.” And a Department of Health and Human Services study found that unlimited excessive non-economic damages (“pain and suffering,” the kind that John Edwards made a lucrative career out of ) adds between $70 billion and $126 billion annually to health-care costs. As Texas Rep. Lamar Smith wrote “These predatory suits amount to legalized extortion and require doctors to purchase malpractice insurance at great expense.”

Tort reform and individual restraint in ordering medical tests can be accomplished at the state and at the individual level. Texas has already accomplished meaningful tort reform (limits non-economic damages to $250,000). Adopting similar reform simply requires legislators to honor the needs of their constituency rather than the wishes of powerful attorney lobbyists. Individuals can start acting like medical costs come out of their own pockets and can start asking their doctors such questions as: “How much does this test/procedure cost?” “Is it really necessary?” and “Is there a generic drug I can get instead?”

The answer is certainly not a new and massive entitlement program, one that is so fraught with exemptions and double standards that it calls into question the very rationale for uniform healthcare in the first place. The most problematic provision of the healthcare bill is the one which gives government subsidies to help individuals and families purchase health insurance. This new entitlement, which the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Rick Foster, estimates will cost more than $100 billion per year once it is fully implemented, will damage the country’s long-term fiscal outlook and potentially bankrupt the country. Furthermore, the social impact will be enormous. Government subsidies will further erode the work ethic in this country and will introduce new inequalities into American life. There will be less of a reason to seek the rewards that employment offers and consequently, less of a reason for adolescents to see the value in education. There will be less of an incentive for adults to make sure they can afford their children before reproducing at an irresponsible rate. As the government continues to socially engineer an “even playing field,” incentives for honest hard work and ingenuity and personal responsibility are even further removed.

There are three reasons why we have been able to evolve to a “rationed” care system for our health service professionals: (i) the diminution of God in our society, public life, and in government; (ii) our nation’s open door borders policy; and (iii) the concept that otherwise healthy people are “entitled” to the same things that people who go to school and work hard have without having to invest the same energy and forbearance. After all, at some point, you do run out of other people’s money. When a society constantly punishes good, productive behavior, there is no investment in the type of human beings you need for a successful country. What you end up with is a once-vibrant capitalistic society being replaced by hoards of looters.

References:
“Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and Obamacare – Angel(s) of Death!,” by Liberally Conservative, July 28, 2009. Referenced at: http://www.liberallyconservative.com/dr-ezekiel-emanuel-and-obamacare-angels-of-death/

Ezekiel Emanuel, “The Perfect Storm of Overutilization,” Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), June 18, 2008; 299(23): 2789-2791. Referenced at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/299/23/2789.extract

Ezekiel Emanuel, “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions,” The Lancet, Volume 373, Issue 9661, Pages 423 – 431, 31 January 2009. Referenced at: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60137-9/fulltext%5D

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tx), “Tort Reform Key to Cutting Soaring healthcare Costs,” The Hill, March 19, 2010. Referenced at: http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/87901-tort-reform-key-to-cutting-soaring-healthcare-costs

Susan Donaldson James, ” Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon,” ABC News, Aug. 6, 2008. Referenced at: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

Dr. C.L. Gray, “What This Means for You,” Physicians for Reform. Referenced at: http://www.physiciansforreform.org/index.php?id=30

by Diane Rufino, March 12, 201

Background:

The Constitution was written for those in whose name it was cast – “We the People.” Why was it written for the People? As the Preamble explains, it was written so that people and their posterity would know what to expect from their new government. Basically the government would protect citizens from internal strife and from attack from the outside, but most importantly, it would defend individual liberty. In other words, the Founders did not establish the Constitution for the purpose of granting rights but rather for the purpose of protecting rights.

The Constitution was also written to memorialize the notion that sovereign power rests with the individual and not with the federal government or any governmental agency. Power starts at the bottom and trickles up to the government and not the other way around. When this concept is understood, then Americans can have to proper perspective to understand the Constitution. As Patrick Henry explained: “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 comes to dominate our lives and interests.”

Our Founders were able to recognize that power rests with the People because of Natural Law, a philosophy put forth by Marcus Tullius Cicero, a Roman lawyer and statesman, and later by the British philosopher, John Locke. Natural Law, the bedrock principle of our founding documents, states that our rights come from God and not from any government. It was reasoned that certain human liberties are so fundamental to one’s existence that they must come from our Creator. In the grand order of the world, God reigns supreme, over the world and over all nations, and because he has created us in his image, he gives each of us a spark of his divinity through intelligent thought, the ability to reason, and wisdom. No other living being is capable of such deep thought, profound wisdom, and reflective reasoning. Because humans share reason with our Creator, and because our Creator is presumed to be benevolent, it follows that we too will be benevolent, when employing reason correctly. Reason and benevolence is termed “right reason” and is the foundation of law. As such, law promotes good and forbids evil; it promotes good conduct and punishes evil conduct. Our Founders studied such examples in the Old Testament. They noted how laws emerged so man could defend his life and property. In forming into a community, individuals agree to surrender or transfer some degree of their natural rights to a government which is able to better protect those rights better than any man could do alone. And that is why the Constitution reads, in the Preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It states the precise reasons “We the People” agree to transfer a certain degree of their natural rights to the federal government, and just as the philosophy of Natural Law explains, the reasons are for the purpose of providing safety and protection and for protecting rights and liberties more effectively. The reason the federal government can establish justice, for example, is because the right to protect one’s life, liberty, and property originally lies with the people, in their inherent God-given rights. The rights are transferred to the government. Hence we have the police, our criminal laws which are supposed to deter crime and force persons to conform to good conduct, and the criminal justice system.

Because government exists solely for the well-being of the community, any government that breaks the compact can and should be replaced, according to natural law. And again this goes back to the premise that since our rights come from God and not out of the benevolence of the government, the government has no authority to take them away.

Only the United States has a Constitution, or legal foundation, that is premised on the fact that our rights come from God. And this is important because in this country, more than in any other nation, our fundamental rights should be respected and protected by government. That is why we refer to our nation as the “American experiment.”

We acknowledge that the views and the writings philosopher John Locke played a crucial role in our Founders’ view of liberty. His influence was most apparent in the Declaration of Independence, the constitutional separation of powers, and the Bill of Rights. James Madison drew his most fundamental principles of liberty and government from Locke. Locke inspired Thomas Paine, George Mason, Benjamin Franklin, and others. Thomas Jefferson believed Locke to be the most important thinker on liberty and natural rights.

Drawing inspiration from John Locke, Jefferson, the drafter of our Declaration of Independence, our charter of freedom, believed strongly in the right to property, which he understood to be part of the natural right to pursue happiness. He believed that government is morally obliged to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property, and our government, as based on limited powers and the principle of checks and balances, was crafted to protect these fundamental rights. The Declaration was initially written to read: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by the Creator with certain natural rights that among these are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursuing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.” This language was believed, especially according to Virginia’s George Mason, to be a literal improvement of Locke’s phrase “Life, Liberty, and Property.”
Locke established that private property is absolutely essential for liberty: “Every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any right to but himself.
The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” He explains that the primary reason for men to organize themselves into societies and to institute a common government is for “the Preservation of their Property.” Certainly, the right to property and the right to the fruits of one’s labor (including compensation) are as fundamental a right as the right to life itself.

Locke believed people legitimately turned common property into private property by mixing their labor with it, improving it. He insisted that people, not rulers, are sovereign, which also happens to be the bedrock principle underlying our Constitution. Government, Locke wrote, “can never have a Power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the Subjects Property, without their own consent. For this would be in effect to leave them no Property at all.” He makes his point even more explicit: rulers “must not raise Taxes on the Property of the People, without the Consent of the People, given by themselves, or their Deputies.” Thus, according to Locke, an individual’s labor, his intellect, his personality, the good will he earns through his honest and ethical conduct, and the fruits of all of these are his PROPERTY and are to be protected with the greatest zeal by any legitimate government.

Locke went further and affirmed an explicit right to revolution: “Whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence.”

In 1772, John Adams wrote “The Rights of the Colonists,” which he delivered to a Boston Town meeting. He started his historic document with these words: ” Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.” As the colonists were British subjects at the time, Adams further wrote in his essay: “The absolute rights of Englishmen and all freemen, in or out of civil society, are principally personal security, personal liberty, and private property.”

Arthur Lee of Virginia (1775) wrote: “The Right of property is the guardian of every other Right, and to deprive the people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their Liberty.” William Blackstone, the great British legal scholar, wrote: “So great is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community.” Ayn Rand, author and philosopher, wrote: “Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property.” And finally, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association–‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'” Frederic Bastiat, a French economist, wrote: “Each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of one is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.”

Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker’s paycheck. The Supreme Court has classified income tax as a direct income tax. Apparently, in enacting the 16th Amendment, legislators ignored the pesky little problem of States’ rights and the concept of federalism. After the government attempted to enact a peace-time income tax following the Civil War, the Supreme Court, in Pollock v Farmer’s Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), declared it unconstitutional. Referring to the explicit prohibition against direct taxation in Article I, the Court argued that the income tax would excessively enhance federal power in relation to state power. But in an effort to “soak the rich” and attempt to strip them of at least some of the power they held, the 16th Amendment was passed despite the important Constitutional principle it violated.

In his book “The Income Tax: Root of all Evil,” Frank Chodorov explains why taxes on income and inheritance are different in principle from all other taxes: “The government says to the citizen: ‘Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours; we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide.’”

As Larry Arnn and Grover Norquist wrote in their 2003 article in Claremont entitled “Repeal the 16th Amendment”: “Although the first income tax in 1913 was very limited–it applied to just 2% of the labor force, and its highest rate was 7%–it prepared the way for the federal government’s almost unlimited access to revenue. It thus provided an almost unlimited ability to fund programs that are properly state matters–crime fighting, education, welfare–and to pressure the states into conforming to a national standard in matters that should reflect regional differentiation, like speed limits and drinking ages.”

The Problem:

The nation currently faces a crisis not only financially, but also of conscience. It also faces a crisis of Constitutional proportions, under both the very language of Article I and under the Equal Protection Clause which requires that laws must be applied equally to all Americans. In 2009, the Democratic-led Congress enacted a series of tax reforms and generous exemptions and tax credits and then in 2010, it passed the gargantuan economic stimulus bill. The result of these reforms, credits, and stimulus bill is that millions of Americans have been dropped from the federal tax rolls. A huge number of Americans are simply no longer affected by the federal income tax. Before these tax reforms, 47% of Americans were already not paying income tax. Now this number is well over 50% and shows every indication of continuing to climb higher. As if that weren’t enough, the bottom 40% of income-earners actually receive a cash payment from the government at tax time. This is a re-distribution of wealth in its most recognizable form and is not covered under the “General Welfare” Clause. Hence it is not a legitimate exercise of Congress’s powers.

Under the Obama administration, many Americans accustomed to paying their share of federal taxes are being taken off the tax rolls. Recent tax law changes mean that for the first time, in 2009, a family of four making $50,000 can pay no federal income tax at all. A family at this income level has surely suffered in this recession, but should they really pay no federal income tax at all? By the way, can you guess which political party they will now side with?

The fact is that America has become divided between a growing class of people who pay no income taxes and a shrinking class of people who are bearing the lion’s share of the burden. Despite what critics have said about former President Bush that the tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 favored the “rich,” these cuts actually reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers and shifted the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers. Everything the government does continues to shift the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers and at some point it has to stop before the notion of fundamental fairness we so treasure in this country is made a complete mockery.

The current mindset of the Democrats and progressives is dangerous and alarming. It goes against the fundamental principles of our founding documents. Democrats and progressive politicians have turned John Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country” on its head. And telling so many Americans that they don’t need to make sacrifices for our government, as we are now saying, is dangerous new territory for our nation and for the health of our democracy and economy.

Furthermore, by placing the tax burden so heavily on a certain class of Americans and continuing to do so by excluding so many others, the situation is almost tantamount to institutional slavery, or involuntary servitude (to be free only when he or she retires, loses his job, or takes a job at a very low pay). In other words, a taxpayer can only be freed from this immense burden (over 4 months of the year are spent in financial hock to the federal government) if he or she betrays her own conscience and inalienable right to pursue the career of his/her own choice. The 13th Amendment promises that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, shall exist within the United States.”

Recognizing that there is an inherent laziness and “degree of depravity in mankind” which will unfortunately flourish greater in a republican form of government (James Madison), we would expect non-taxpayers to behave as they do. Their demand for entitlements and government programs is naturally insatiable because they don’t care at all about the cost. Others are providing the funding who, in their eyes, have “more than enough.” Consequently, they will always support increasing government programs as a long as they get even a small benefit from them because it does not cost them a cent. And so they will support politicians who favor more spending. Representatives who need the support of such persons to be elected will continue to take from the pockets of others to provide to this solid voting block.

Therefore, by taking more and more Americans off the federal tax rolls, Democrats and progressives are creating a permanent base of supporters for themselves. In doing so, they have abused the progressive income tax too flagrantly and too unashamedly. Many years ago, when Americans were Christians and God-fearing people, they knew it wasn’t right to take something for nothing. They knew they should not look at what another has and covet it. But Americans are a new breed and ‘honor’ isn’t a word that’s used much anymore.

At the rate Democrats and progressives are going, hard-working Americans can never expect their tax rates to go down. And it has to stop now, in the name of fundamental fairness and with reference to the Constitution and the reason the nation was formed in the first place.

Just as Democrats are catering to the needs of their voter base, Republicans must now begin to look after the interests of their voters.

The Solution:

For all the reasons above, I make the following proposal. I propose that voter rights be subjected to the same arbitrary and progressive rules that property rights are. Just as the tax burden is assigned on the ability to pay, the weight of an individual’s vote should be assigned based on the ‘stake’ that person has in government policies that will potentially diminish his or her property rights. A person with a lot of money might be taxed more but he also should have a greater say in what the government does with his money as opposed to someone who has contributes nothing.

I’ve already discussed that that the federal income tax, a direct tax on property, is an unconstitutional burden on inalienable personal freedoms. The right to property and the right to the fruits of one’s labor (including a paycheck) are as fundamental a right as the right to life itself. The Declaration of Independence gives each individual the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (embodied in all types of property), and under the US Constitution, the federal government MUST protect these rights equally for all Americans. Yet the government has not done so.

Our Founders created a republic form of government to protect the rights of minority groups from mob rule, but they never expected other groups of Americans to be required to support them through forced and regulated charity (spreading the wealth or redistribution of wealth). There is indeed a Constitutional crisis when fundamental rights are treated so shabbily. There is indeed a Constitutional crisis when fundamental rights are treated so differently between and among groups of Americans. We’ve gone through many crises in our country when civil liberties and fundamental rights were not respected equally and we’ve put laws in place to remedy the situation. Yet when it comes to money, our government and courts can’t seem to apply the same notions of fundamental fairness and equality, even though money is intricately tied to more precious fundamental rights. The fact is that everyone realizes that income tax is no longer so much a tax system as it is a wealth distribution scheme and that this goal has become more important than protecting individual liberty. There is something fundamentally wrong and something exceedingly offensive in light of our founding documents when self-anointed visionaries of social policy, particularly those in government, infringe on property rights, and especially on the fruits of the very intangibles that we are given from God – our intelligence, ability to reason, wisdom, and personality — in short, our individuality and uniqueness. People must realize that this particular type of societal change is not in the best interests of our country. It might be in the best interests of individuals but it is not in the best interests of the country and her stability and longevity. Our financial bankruptcy is finally catching up with the depth of our moral and ethical bankruptcy.

We have undeniably sunk to a new low in “punishing” productive behavior – such as investing in education, conducting oneself morally and ethically, building a career, and making the necessary sacrifices in family life to move up the corporate or business ladder – through excessive taxation. Such productive behavior used to be the ones that defined Americans. That’s not the case anymore. The character of Americans has changed.

The reality is that non-taxpayers have no financial “stake” in the fiscal responsibility, or irresponsibility, of the government and have no “stake” in the decisions of the government to spend taxpayer money or to raise taxes. And the changing dynamics in this country whereby the numbers of those individuals not paying taxes are increasing much faster than the numbers of those paying taxes. This changing dynamic makes one thing very clear for our republican form of government – that taxpayers are not being properly represented in government due to voter dilution. Let us not forget the reason our colonists and founding Americans went to war against Britain to secure independence in the first place. That reason can be summed up in the immortal words “No Taxation Without Representation!”

American taxpayers are no longer fairly represented in government because a greater percentage of Americans have no tax liability and are therefore voting to spend other people’s money. Furthermore, such non-taxpayers lack the proper nexus to the “checks and balances” that keeps government responsibly tied to person’s property. As a result, spending is out of control. Congress doesn’t have a taxing problem; it has a spending problem. It sees hardworking Americans as an unlimited source of revenue – but only about 45% of them.

Congress bears a moral responsibility to provide for and protect individual Liberty, including economic Liberty, and personal property (whether real or intellectual). If the current income tax structure is permitted to exist in its arbitrary and progressive nature, then immediately, there MUST be voter reform to institute a progressive, or weighted, voting system to protect the inherent property interests of taxpayers. While each person is entitled to one vote, additional voter weight will be given to those who pay taxes, own property, own a business, and otherwise engage in activities which are subject to the onerous and burdensome taxation requirements of the federal government. This progressive voting scheme will be necessary to combat the inherent unfairness of the current income tax scheme. In the alternative, we MUST abolish the 16th Amendment and move to a Fair Tax or other fair taxation scheme, or go back to the taxation scheme that served our nation well for the first 126 years of our existence – revenues which were raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes. It never touched a worker’s paycheck. Of course, that would require the federal government to divest all its unconstitutional powers and functions.

My solution just keeps getting better !!

References:
Larry P. Arnn and Grover Norquist, “Repeal the 16th Amendment,” The Claremont Institute, April 15, 2003.
[ http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.477/pub_detail.asp ]

Ilana Mercer, Repeal the Abominable 16th Amendment, WorldNetDaily, November 20, 2002.
[ http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29716#ixzz1F6ILra20 ]

As you all know from the news, we are living in very scary times. Things haven’t been this bad in a very long time, and perhaps 2012 is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

• People are rioting in the streets in nations all over the world, calling for their governments to step down. Some of these governments are responding peacefully and others are gunning the protesters down in the streets as if they are nothing more than pestilent rats.

• Our sworn enemy, even as identified in the Bible, not only has barbarically slaughtered over 3000 innocent Americans on 9/11 but they have officially arrived at our shores to stay. Despite an ideology that despises our rules and culture and ultimately cannot exist peacefully in a Christian-based nation, Islamic communities have taken hold all over this country, are challenging our laws, and using our very tolerance and multiculturalism against us. And now our finest lawyers are taking up their cause. Our President has announced worldwide that the United States is the largest Muslim nation. We are at the verge of building a magnificent mosque at Ground Zero as a symbol of Islam’s conquest of the US.

• The Department of Homeland Security, through Janet Napolitano, has identified domestic rightwing groups (such as the Tea Party groups), as being potential sources of violence. In fact, in her report “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Radicalization and Recruitment,” she cites domestic rightwing groups as likely to engage in acts of violence because of the various emerging social and political issues, including:
(a) The prolonged economic downturn (including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, an inability to obtain credit, the outsourcing of jobs)
(b) The election of the first African-American president
(c) Resentment over immigration
(d) The passage of the healthcare reform bill
(e) Opposition to a large central government
(f) Opposition to the current rate of taxation
—- Do these issues sound familiar ?? People who are legitimately concerned about the path this country is heading down and people who are genuinely affected by such issues are on a Homeland Security watch list as potential sources of domestic violence. I suppose that leftwing groups do nothing to warrant such government scrutiny. This is our very government engaging in “View point” discrimination. This is our very own government attempting to shut the conservative message down by issuing a report claiming that we pose a serious enough threat to internal security to be monitored. How long before Tea Party groups will no longer be able to even associate with one another? How long before the government tries to make that a crime? How long before the government issues subpoenas to seize our records and access our emails ?

• The federal government refuses to do its job to keep Americans safe and secure, which not only means safe from the violence that illegal immigrants bring but also safe from the insecurity that comes from a national debt so gargantuan that our very existence becomes precarious. We have a government that completely disregards the pleas of the American people to close our borders and to give assimilation a fighting chance. But no, the borders are open and violent criminals are pouring in. How many reports must we hear about rapes and violent murders and repeat offenses at the hands of illegals? How many are being swept under the carpet so we don’t have to hear about them and complain? We have no meaningful system to track murderous criminals and in fact, the government simply releases them back onto the streets after briefly detaining them and asking them to “please return for a deportation hearing.” I guess it is only the government who believes criminals have personal integrity because it would rather hire more IRS agents to persecute those not paying healthcare insurance than ICE agents to deport criminal illegal aliens in order to make sure our streets and neighborhoods are safe.

• We have more than half the country that loves this country for all the wrong reasons – for the hand-outs and the freedom to disregard education, work, responsibility, and service to their country. “At some point you run out of other people’s money.”

• Aol.com bought out Huffington Post to bring liberal media more into the mainstream where feeble minds can latch on to its message of a government nanny state.

• Democrats in government still don’t understand the gravity of our debt problem. We are losing stature in the world’s eyes. We are mortgaging our children’s future. We are putting the integrity of our entire system on the line.

• Americans still don’t understand what it means to be blessed with Liberty and the responsibilities that come from that. They still don’t understand that with liberty comes a great cost and that cost is eternal vigilance.

• Americans still don’t understand that the US Constitution is everyone’s personal charter of freedom. In defending the Constitution and its design for a limited federal government, we ensure our own liberties. If we fail to stand up for violations of this document, we chip away steadily at our very freedoms. Apparently not everyone values robust freedom. Apparently not everyone knows what to do with it. But unbridled freedom is the very core of what America stands for and it’s the very reason millions left their homeland in the 1700’s, 1800’s, and 1900’s to come to her shores.

• Our President has announced that we are no longer a Christian nation and with every official action and with every official word and government action on his behalf, he announces that this is indeed true.

• Our President just announced that he will REFUSE to enforce a national law which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. (I didn’t know he had that option to refuse to do his job). He declared that the law is unconstitutional. (Not the Supreme Court, mind you, but Obama himself made this enlightened decision). We are not a government of men; we are a government of laws. It would serve Obama, apparently a lawyer, to go back and read the Constitution (or read it for the first time, whatever the case may be).

• These are just to name a few of the current problems…..

WE ARE QUICKLY LOSING OUR VERY HERITAGE AND MEANINGFUL INSTITUTIONS.

So please let us not forget or neglect the words of the very document which declared our independence from another government that oppressed the American people – the Declaration of Independence:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Isn’t that why we have joined the Tea Party? To recognize that our government has indeed become destructive of the ends for which it was created. And to alter it ….. peacefully.

I know this year is an off-year election, but that should not give us reason to rest. The coming years will make or break us as a nation. A house divided cannot stand. A nation that doesn’t stand for good cannot ask for blessings. The Bible says we need those blessings or we will perish.

But please know this. In Raleigh, state representatives feel the Tea Party presence and respect its power. This is undeniable. In Washington DC, representatives feel the Tea Party presence and respect its power. I’ve been there and I found this out for myself. The Tea Party movement is historic. It is real and it is very palpable. It stands in a long line of bold attempts by free men to stand up for their inalienable rights in the face of tyranny and oppression.

More and more, the Tea Party can be compared to the Boston Tea Party of 1773. It is a revolt against an oppressive government who believes that people are ruled by powerful men rather than rules. At the height of the Stamp Act crisis, which culminated in the Boston Tea Party, William Pitt proclaimed in Parliament, “The Americans are the sons not the bastards of England.” Today, just as back in the 1700’s, we the people are indeed ignored by our government, as if we too are bastards rather than sons and daughters. Our Declaration said this about King George: “A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Could this not easily be said of Barack Obama? The Declaration also cited this offense for justifying our separation from England: “…For abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.” Is that not what Obama and his Czars are trying to do?

It is said that since our feudal roots in England following the invasion by William the Conqueror (of Normandy, France), every time the people stood up and fought for their rights and freedoms, they were granted recognition and protection of those rights, and with each successful confrontation, they were granted greater rights. It would be an abomination if in our most civilized era, we were not wise enough to stand up for our rights or for the most ingeniously crafted Constitution the world has ever known.

I am not sending this out necessarily to compel you to any action, but rather to remind you to please stand resolute in your commitment to effect meaningful change in this country – for our children and grandchildren. If you can find the time, please continue to be active in the Tea Party, please help recruit, please become involved locally, become visible, become vocal, become active, and continue to educate yourselves on the issues.

Please pass along –
Thank You & God Bless,
Diane Rufino

by Diane Rufino, Jan. 12, 2010

On Saturday, January 8th, the country witnessed a tragic and horrific act of violence. Six innocent individuals were killed at a shopping center in Tucson, Arizona – Christina-Taylor Green (only 9 years old), Judge John Roll (age 63; chief judge of the U.S. District Court for Arizona who was named to the bench by President George H. W. Bush in 1991), Dorothy “Dot” Morris (age 76; a retired secretary), Phyllis Schneck (age 79; homemaker), Dorwan Stoddard (age 76; retired construction worker), and Gabriel “Gabe” Zimmerman (age 30, community outreach director for Rep. Giffords). Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the target of the shooting, was shot through the head at point-blank range and is thankfully expected to survive. Within hours of the shooting, Sheriff Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik addressed the media for the first time saying that “vitriolic political rhetoric” heard on the radio and TV caused the killer, Jared Loughner, to go on his bloody killing spree that also left 14 wounded. “When the rhetoric about hatred, about mistrust of government, about paranoia of how government operates, and to try to inflame the public on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it has impact on people, especially those who are unbalanced personalities,” he said.

In his official capacity as a Pima County sheriff, Dupnik had no authority to speculate as to the cause of Loughner’s acts. He had, of course, no facts … and no proof. And he readily admitted this.

It is amazing how politicians never cease to talk out of both sides of their mouths. Just over a week ago, on January 6th, the day the 112th Congress was sworn in, we heard Nancy Pelosi and members of Congress pledge to unify and work together for the good of the American people. But only two days later, on January 8th, as soon as news of the shooting reached political ears, Dick Durbin was out there blaming Sarah Palin and the Tea Party folks. And every left-of-center group has continued to use the Arizona shooting incident to divide the nation once again along political lines. For example, following the shootings, the NY Times wrote “It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.” ¹

And Keith Olbermann made this comment on his MSNBC show on Jan. 8: “If Sarah Palin, whose website put and today scrubbed bulls-eye targets on 20 representatives, including Gabby Giffords, does not repudiate her own part – however tangential – in amplifying violence and violent imagery in American politics, she must be dismissed from politics. She must be repudiated by the members of her own party. And if they fail to do so, each one of them must be judged to have silently defended this tactic that today proved so awfully foretelling.”

When it comes to politics, it sounds like they are taking their cue from Rahm Emanuel’s playbook – “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

I, and apparently a growing majority of Americans, are getting more frustrated each day over comments by the news and others that it’s because of the tensions caused by the Tea Party movement and by people like Sarah Palin that Jared Lee Loughner went to the shopping center that afternoon to shoot Congresswoman Giffords. I think the left has sunk to a new low.

I think those that hide under the protections of freedom of the press should take the time to research before they report and comment. I think that politicians who have sworn to uphold the Constitution should reflect upon the true meaning of freedom of speech, which is this: the freedom to have a free and robust political discussion where all ideas make it into the marketplace of ideas where they are able to compete. It is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas. The “marketplace of ideas” is just like any other free market model – ideas and viewpoints compete against each other in theory, truth, and rationality and the best ideas will prevail.

A cursory look at Loughner would show anyone that he has no allegiance whatsoever to the values that America stands on. He has spent years challenging both conservative principles and religion alike. He praises books like Brave New World, the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf and worships a shrine built of a human skull in the back of his yard. He had been arrested several times for making threats against others at the local college, he made students and teachers uncomfortable, he was registered politically as an Independent, he smoked dope regularly, and he blogged about the government performing “mind control.” I hardly see where the likes of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party caused him to become deranged. Sounds like he was already there. It looks as though he took his inspiration from Columbine and the rampant violence promoted on TV, movies, and in computer games rather than the peaceful marches on Washington. Furthermore, to say the Constitutionally-minded, Christian-loving group, the Tea Party, is creating a dangerous climate in this country which is leading to increased violence is simply irresponsible. If he were to suddenly start going to church and reading the Bible, then I could understand the Tea Party being to blame, but not the senseless violence he committed. What about all those years of Bush-bashing? How many times did we hear death threats against Bush (prompted by the hateful and malicious sentiments of the left)? How about the Liberal online journal that called for the death of Sarah Palin? ² Has no one taken the time to listen to a rally headed by the Reverend Al Sharpton? What about the new Black Panthers? They certainly don’t foster the Kumbaya sentiment, do they? To them, politics means confrontation.

Sheriff Dupnik himself polarized the political climate in Pima County more than any group could do. He publicly announced that Arizona’s new immigration policy was outright “racist.” He also publicly commented that the Tea Party “brings out the worst in America.” Who is really fueling tempers here ? Who is really fueling hatred and bigotry?

Barack Obama is also no stranger to confrontation. On May 4, in a public forum, he called Tea Party activists “tea baggers,” a horribly derogatory term which is associated with oral sex. Everyone knows that Tea Party activists loath the term “tea baggers,” and in fact, most members consider it so offensive that they regard it as the rough equivalent of calling an African American the “N word.” As Fellowshipofminds.wordpress wrote: “Barack Obama repeatedly sprinkled his political campaigning with words more appropriate to a street thug than the President of the United States.” In June 2008, during his campaign, he was asked how he would counter Republican attacks. He answered: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” Then in September, he said: “I want you to go out and talk to your neighbors. . . . I want you to argue with them, get in their faces.” ³ I could be wrong, but those lines sound like they could have easily come out of Robert DeNiro’s mouth in the movie The Untouchables where he played the notorious mobster Al Capone. Not exactly words of respect and understanding. Not exactly the “toned down rhetoric” that Democrats and liberals are now all of a sudden calling for.

In fact, Fellowshipofminds.wordpress lists many instances of frenzied vitriol by the left that leaves one with a new appreciation for the word “hypocrite.” In fact, if a member of the Tea Party were to ever issue such public comments, the party itself would openly condemn them before the court of public opinion could even weigh in. The list is quite impressive (for a mobster):

(1) Keith Halloran, a New Hampshire Democratic candidate, wrote on a Facebook thread that he wished Palin had been aboard the Alaska plane that crashed, killing five including Sen. Ted Stevens.

(2) Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy, columnist for the Washington Post, wrote: “I know how the ‘tea party’ people feel.. the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their ‘Obama Plan White Slavery’ signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.”

(3) In December 2009 during the health care debate, Paul Krugman of the New York Times wrote, “A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy.”

(4) After 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, President Bush suddenly became as unpopular as Bill O’Reilly with most women of The View. The left really came into their own at this time. In fact, the sentiment was so pervasive that it was given a name – the “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” Michael Moore was infected with it and so were other celebrities. A movie (TV docudrama), “Death of a President,” was made about the fictional assassination of President Bush and allowed to be shown on American TV. As one commentator wrote: “We’ve seen from early in his presidency the extremes that the political Left are willing to go to vilify him. This takes this vilification to a new and disturbing level.”

(5) In 2006, as contempt for President Bush continued to build, New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi introduced Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) at a commencement ceremony at NYC’s Queen’s College as “the man who, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the President’s eyes if he could get away with it.” New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi said Thursday that a fellow New York Democrat would “put a bullet between the president’s eyes if he could get away with it.”

(6) Michael Feingold of the Village Voice wrote: “Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.”

(7) Liberal talk radio host Mike Malloy suggested someone should hang Internet king Matt Drudge, writing, “Drudge? Aw, Drudge, somebody ought to wrap a strong Republican entrail around his neck and hoist him up about 6 feet in the air and watch him bounce.”

(8) Greenpeace advocated mass civil disobedience last April (2010) with this blog item on its website: “The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism. . . . If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically elected governments into submission, then hear this: We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.”

(9) In June 2010, Nathan Tabor, a business owner, head of the Forsyth County Republican Party, Tea Party activist, and a former candidate for public office assembled with 25 others to peacefully protest government bailouts in front of Rep. Mel Watt’s (D-NC) Greensboro, NC office. Soon thereafter, a man walked around the corner and intentionally walked into the middle of the crowd saying ‘It’s all George W. Bush’s fault. It’s all Dick Cheney’s fault.” The man then pushed Tabor several times, to which Tabor did not retaliate. Then the man pushed Tabor’s wife. When Mr. Tabor told him to keep his hands off his wife, the man punched Tabor in the face. This happened right in front of Mr. Tabor’s young daughter. I watched the footage.

(10) In August 2009, members of the Service Employees International Union beat up Kenneth Gladney for distributing “Don’t Tread On Me” flags at a Missouri town hall meeting. 4

Judge John Roll, the federal judge who was killed by Loughner, drew sharp political criticism in 2009 — and several death threats — when he ruled on a pre-trial motion in favor of illegal immigrants in a civil case involving an Arizona rancher. At the time, the threats, online and otherwise, were significant and persistent enough to warrant full protective status from the U.S. Marshal’s Service for Roll and his family. Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva had to close his office because of so many death threats from racist callers over his opposition to the state’s immigration bill, S.B.1070. Congresswoman Giffords herself had the glass door to her office shattered right after she voted for the healthcare bill. And then there was the bullet that was shot through the window of Eric Cantor’s Richmond office.

The fact is that there is a lot of tension and frustration in this country simply as a result of the recent action and policies themselves of our government. The government’s position on immigration, as exemplified by the threat to Judge Roll’s life, alone is a great source of tension. Although there is an immigration policy, the government refuses to enforce it. Furthermore, the government has spent a year showing blatant disregard for the wishes of the American people. Power is vested in Czars who run the country at the whim of the President and the people have no power to do anything about that… yet. Just as frustration built up in this country after President Bush took the country to war in Iraq and that frustration led to violent outbursts and aggressive confrontations in cities all over the nation, those who have taken the nation down a similar unpopular path can’t cry innocence when tensions again come to a boil. It’s the spirit that gave birth to our independence and that has managed to keep the pendulum always closer to center rather than to either extreme of left or right.

Doug Rufino wrote an article to the local Greenville, NC paper, The Daily Reflector, in which he criticized those who blame the Tea Party for the shootings in Tucson. He wrote: “The recent change in the Washington landscape is not due to preachers of hate. Our Constitutional right to vote did that. You insult the American people throughout this country that elected the historic new Congress. Maybe you are still wondering how this happened. Look no further than to Americans who decided that government was getting increasingly out of control. It was our Founders who instructed us to be wary of government, not Beck and Rush. Our very Declaration of Independence tells us “…..Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”…

Robust political debate and engagement is the ultimate display of patriotism and democracy. After all, democracy is the first leg of our republicanism. But it is only a “leg” Our nation was set up as a republic by our Founders for one basic reason – to prevent mob rule… to prevent those types of outcomes that result from a hot-headed majority which might unreasonably burden the minority. Robust political debate is what helps us make sure we send the best representatives possible to conduct the nation’s business.

Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party – they are the embodiment of patriotism (devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national loyalty). They have never advocated for anything other than the peaceful return to the values that our country was founded on. Anyone who has taken the time to attend a Tea Party rally can attest to that.

In speaking about patriotism, Adlai Stevenson wrote: “When an American says that he loves his country, he means not only that he loves the New England hills, the prairies glistening in the sun, the wide and rising plains, the great mountains, and the sea. He means that he loves an inner air, an inner light in which freedom lives and in which a man can draw the breath of self-respect.” He also wrote: “America is much more than a geographical fact. It is a political and moral fact – the first community in which men set out in principle to institutionalize freedom, responsible government, and human equality.”

While others are so willing to sell out our Founders for notions that history has proven corrupt and destructive, the Tea Party echoes those words of Carrie Latet: “May I never wake up from the American dream!”

You can love your country, but that doesn’t necessarily make you a good American. You can love your country, but if you open your mouth to squash someone else’s right to speak freely and honestly, you are not a good American. If you use an occasion like the shooting in Tucson to demand further restrictions and regulations over fundamental liberties, you are not a good American.

We should always abhor violence – especially when it targets the innocent. But a “good” American will not try to use an occasion like this – one of random violence – to change the political climate in this country. After all, it was a political climate like this that led a group of Bostonians in the middle of the night on Dec. 16, 1773 to dump the tea on board British ships into the Boston Harbor to prevent it from being unloaded on shore and hence being taxed so that Colonists would be forced to support the King without representation in Parliament. “No taxation without representation” was one of the cries which led to our independence. It was a political climate like this that led to the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. And it was a political climate like that that led to the civil rights of African-Americans. Whenever there is a tense political climate, there are critical issues facing the American people. It may not be your particular issue at stake this time, but next time it might be. Robust discourse often creates a charged environment but here in America, we welcome it rather than try to suppress it. That is what being a “good” American is. That is what America stands for. But using guns rather than words and trying to persuade by acts of violence rather than persuasive dialogue is the sign of a civilized nation like the United States. No decent human being supports violence for political gain.

The fact is that Jared Lee Loughner is a social misfit who no doubt sought to vault his stature by associating himself with mass murder and immense personal sadness. It was the ultimate cry for personal attention. He harbored malice in his heart for Congresswoman Giffords. [He met her once in 2007 and called her “stupid and unintelligent.” He was also angered when she refused to acknowledge a question he submitted to her]. We’ve seen his type throughout history – Mark David Chapman, John Hinckley Jr., David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), and Charles Manson. Loughner is not mentally unstable. We know he meticulously planned his actions. The sad realization is that due to political correctness in this nation and the persistent attitude that we shouldn’t make any single person feel uncomfortable, even though Jared Loughner posed a likely threat and fit the profile of a lone looney likely to do something bad (no one seemed surprised that he carried out the killings), no one sought to get him the help he needed. It would have been inconsistent with our current climate of compassion and aversion to profiling for people to have tried to intervene and prevent that final chip in his brain from flipping. And now Christina Green, a 9-yr-old girl who brought joy to those who loved her and who hadn’t even lived long enough to have a first kiss, is dead. Now a federal judge, a young, newly-engaged civil servant, and 3 grandparents are dead. Families are left to grieve and wonder what they ever did to deserve to suffer such senseless slaughter. And a Congresswoman is left bandaged in a hospital wondering if she can ever recover from all the scars – physically, emotionally, and socially.

Ronald Reagan, himself a victim of a lone deranged sociopath (John Hinckley Jr.) once said: “We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his [or her] actions.”

So enough of the mudslinging and name-calling; enough of the meritless accusations. Why don’t we leave the name-calling to those who at least can be excused for it – our children. Running a country requires adults.

References:
1 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?

2 http://bigjournalism.com/taylorking/2010/12/20/salon-publishes-call-for-torture-murder-of-sarah-palin/

3 http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/death-threats-made-by-liberals-and-democrats/

4 http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/death-threats-made-by-liberals-and-democrats/

by Diane Rufino, Jan. 3, 2010

Socialized health care has always conjured up the fear of rationed health care to those deemed of lower social value, such as the elderly and the disabled (but not necessarily criminals and predators, of course). We’ve heard talk of “death panels” now for at least a year – those beaurocrats who would be responsible for deciding who gets life-saving treatment and who does not…. Those who would have to determine the value of the life that requires medical care and then make the weighted decision as to whether the costs involved would be better spent on others.

It sounds like a “cost-benefit analysis” – the kind of analysis that government officials, as well as the rich and powerful, are so fond of making to justify decisions and investments.

Rationed health care (or death panel decisions) would make sense, even though in the minds of Americans, we don’t want to face that cold reality. We look around and see the dynamic changing in our country. Those who value hard work and education and pursue the American dream (wealth and prosperity) are becoming the minority. The middle class and wealthy class are shrinking. In other words, the income tax-paying segment of society is shrinking. Those who exist at the poverty level or just above are out-producing the contributors. Immigrants and illegals are burdening our system. Health care for all that is subsidized by a shrinking subset of the population is bound to reach the point where care will NEED TO be rationed in order to remain feasible.

On July 31, 2009, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann took the floor of the House and addressed rationed health care:

“We need to know what the people who advised the President of the United States think and believe about health care reform, Mr. Speaker. Listening to the President’s advisors’ actual words is very enlightening.

This morning I read a column written by Betsy McCoy – from a column dated July 24, 2009 – and I’d like to quote extensively from it now. Ms. McCoy wrote the following. She said that the health care bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions for our care in Presidential appointees. The government will decide – not the people, not their doctors – what our plan will cover, how much lee-way our doctors will have, and what senior citizens will finally get under Medicare.

But what is more important are the actual words of the President’s advisors on health care. Here are the words from one of the President’s first advisors, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who advocates health care rationing by age and disability. He is the brother of the White House Chief of Staff and has already been appointed to two key positions: One is as Health Policy Advisor at the Office of Management and Budget and the other is as a member of the federal counsel on Comparable Effectiveness Research. This is what Dr. Emanuel has written, and I quote: “Big promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, establishing electronic medical records, and improving quality of health care are merely lipstick measures for cost control… they are more for show and public relations than for true change.”

Isn’t this how Democrats promised to save $500 billion in health care costs? The President’s own advisor, however, says this is just lip service. This isn’t where the real savings are. Savings, the President’s advisor, writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients. For example, doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously.

Now hear me, Mr. Speaker. This is the President’s own advisor writing this: ‘Doctors take their Hippocratic Oath too seriously’…. as an imperative to do everything possible for the patient, regardless of the cost or effects on others. But that’s what people want and expect their doctors to do. Dr. Emanuel, on the other hand, wants doctors to look beyond the needs of the patient and consider social justice, such as if the money would be better spent on someone else.

This is a horrific notion to our nation’s doctors, but it is also a horrific notion to each American because doctors believe, just as Americans believe, that social justice is given out one patient at a time. But the President’s advisor, Dr. Emanuel, believes that communitarianism should guide decisions on who gets care. He says that care should be reserved for the non-disabled. So watch out if you or someone you love is disabled. He says care should be reserved for the non-disabled and not given to those who are “irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.” An obvious example, he said, is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia (even though they may have spent their entire lives as productive good citizens).

We just lost my father-in-law to dementia two months ago. I thank God that the doctors were able to alleviate my poor father-in-law’s symptoms at the end of his life, at age 85. Apparently, under the Democrats’ health care plan, my father-in-law would not have received the high quality of care that he received in his last two months of life. The same would apply for a grandmother with Parkinsons or a child with cerebral palsy. Watch out.

In fact, the President’s advisor defends discrimination against older patients. He writes, and I quote: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. Every person lives through different stages of life, rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority care over 65-year-olds, everyone who is now 65 was previously 25.” [The error in his logic, of course, is that everyone really needs the medical attention when they are closer to 65 and not when they are younger, and they live their lives expecting that greater medical attention when they need it… when they need the quality of life and the comfort that comes from medical intervention]

These bills that are being rushed through Congress right now are going to cut over $500 billion from Medicare in the next ten years, putting it on the backs of the State legislatures to fill in the gaps. Knowing how unpopular these cuts are, the President’s Budget Director, Peter Orszag, has urged Congress to sever their own authority over Medicare in place of a new Presidentially-appointed beaurocracy that will not be accountable to the public.

The President’s next advisor, Dr. David Blumenthal, recommends that we slow medical innovation in order to control health care spending. He has long advocated government spending controls. He in fact considers the worth of medical innovation – that is, new and expensive treatment and devices – to be debatable. He says they are often associated with long waits and selective availability. He questions whether the timely, or less-than timely, care Americans get with innovative health care treatments is worth the cost.

Mr. Speaker, Americans need to wake up and read what the President and his advisors say about healthcare reform.”

On August 7, 2009, Sarah Palin brought up the concept of government “Death Panels” when she wrote:

“As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.

We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.”

Palin was severely criticized for such talk of death panels. How preposterous.

But now we realize that Sarah Palin deserves an apology and Michele Bachmann, although we didn’t want to have to conceive of rationed care here in the United States, was trying to warn us. We just learned, thanks to an article in the New York Times that these women were right all along. The new health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, will indeed lead to “death panels” deciding who gets life-saving treatment and who does not. Oh, it will not be as overt as that. Instead, we will see it instead through a doctor “advising” elder patients or counseling them on end-of-life options that don’t include expensive treatments.

And in fact, that is exactly how it will play out. Under a new Medicare policy not included in the original law passed by Congress, a rule issued by the recess-appointed Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment. This option was originally going to be included in the healthcare reform bill, but it was omitted from the final health care bill because of the potential political fall-out and claims that it would encourage euthanasia.

The final version of the health care legislation, which was signed into law by President Obama in March, authorizes Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or “wellness” visits. The new Medicare rule provides that doctors will be compensated for discussing at such wellness” visits “voluntary advance care planning,” which includes end-of-life treatment.

This rule will inevitably lead to bureaucrats drafting general guidelines as to who is “fit” to live and who is not. (Here is where you are supposed to shutter because you just recalled the “death panels” of Nazi Germany).

So now the Death panel ‘myth’ has been debunked. As Cal Thomas wrote on January 3rd, in his article: “New Rule May be Deadly”: “Ah, but it’s not a myth, and that’s where Palin nailed it. All inhumanities begin with small steps; otherwise the public might rebel against a policy that went straight to the “final solution.” All human life was once regarded as having value because even government saw it as “endowed by our Creator.”

It’s true. The death panel is not a myth. It is indeed a reality which started with the New Year. The question now will be whether the panels will remain should Obamacare be invalidated or repealed. Will Medicare continue to pay doctors to counsel elderly Americans on end-of-life options that don’t include expensive treatments? At what point does advice become “coercion”? And at what point does the payment itself become coercive? Will it cloud the doctor’s mind with respect to his Hippocratic oath?

Mr. Thomas also wrote: “Once the definition of human life changes, all human lives become potentially expendable if they don’t measure up to “evolving” government standards. It will all be dressed up with the best possible motives behind it and sold to the public… [T]he next step [will be] physician-assisted suicide and, if not stopped, government-mandated euthanasia.”.

References:
Sarah Palin, “Statement on the Current Healthcare Debate,” Facebook, Aug. 7, 2009. Referenced at: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434

Representative Michele Bachmann’s Address to the House regarding the President’s Healthcare Advisors, July 31, 2009, YouTube. Referenced at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CHBvKGmevI

Cal Thomas, “New Rule May Be Deadly,” The Daily Reflector, January 3, 2010. Referenced at: http://www.reflector.com/opinion/thomas/cal-thomas-new-rule-may-be-deadly-228345

Robert Pear, “Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir,” NY Times, Dec. 25, 2010. Referenced at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

by Diane Rufino, Dec. 15, 2010

Back in October, I received an email from Patriot Update which listed the 11 enemies of “Life” in the U.S. Congress – those who voted for, or supported – the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion in American history. They wanted to use our hard-earned tax dollars to pay for insurance coverage for abortions, a procedure that too many find offensive to their conscience. The 11 representatives listed in the email were: Baron Hill (IN-9), John Boccieri (OH-16), Chris Carney (PA-10), Paul Kanjorski (PA-11), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3), Tom Perriello (VA-5), Alan Grayson (FL-8), Bob Etheridge (NC-2), John Spratt (SC-5), John Salazar (CO-3), and Joe Donnelly (IN-2). Of these 11, only Joe Donnelly was re-elected on November 2, and he managed to keep his seat by only 1% of the vote. It would seem that Americans have grown a conscience.

Then I remembered something I read in a Princeton University magazine. According to a Gallup Poll conducted in May of last year, 51% of Americans call themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% consider themselves “pro-choice.” This is the first time a majority of adults in this country have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

It is said that a conscience without God is like a court without a judge.

It got me thinking about our country’s stand on abortion and what the issues are on both sides. As we all know, abortion is the voluntary, or calculated, intentional termination of an embryo or fetus. I understand that reasonable people can debate when life actually begins and I understand that religion teaches that life begins at conception. Yet I somehow feel there could be some room for common ground in the very early stages of a pregnancy. But once there is a heartbeat, it would be impossible for me to imagine any reason why that living being should be terminated, absent an urgent dire threat to the mother’s life. Yet as it stands now, abortions performed prior to the third trimester are legal in this country, thanks to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. [The decision states that since a fetus is not a human being and therefore has no rights, including any that are protected under our Constitution, the woman’s right to control her fertility and reproduction ability naturally outweigh any possible rights of the developing fetus for the first two trimesters. With respect to the third trimester, the state may have an interest in protecting the life of the unborn and so it can regulate, but NOT when the woman’s health becomes an issue. So Roe also shows great tolerance for the abortion of a baby that is ready to be born].

Pro-life groups believe in the sanctity of all life. They believe, as Ronald Reagan wrote so eloquently in 1983, that to diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn – diminishes the value of all human life. They believe that God is the giver of life. They believe that the embryo or fetus is “alive” and thus abortion is tantamount to murder. To them the question is not when human life begins, but rather ‘What is the value of human life?’ “The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother’s body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law — the same right we have.” (Ronald Reagan)

Since the decision in Roe v. Wade, which stands for the legal fiction that a fetus is not a human being, more than 20 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is well over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation’s wars. In 1982 the nation watched as a court in Indiana allowed the starvation death of “Baby Doe” because the child had Down’s Syndrome. The death of the tiny infant Baby Doe tore at the hearts of Americans because the child was undeniably a human being – alive. He was born mentally retarded and with an incomplete esophagus. He laid helpless before the eyes of the doctors and the eyes of the nation. The parents wanted to deny it a simple medical procedure to fix his esophagus so he could eat and they sued for the right to let him die. This time the issue before the court was not whether Baby Doe was a human being, but rather whether parents had the right to choose to terminate the life of their baby when it was handicapped or whether the state could step in and try to save its life. They sided with the parents. If Baby Doe received such little compassion from the courts, how do those who haven’t had the opportunity to enter the world stand a chance?

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who in 1969 was a co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), later renamed the National Abortion Rights Action League, helped make abortion legal. He provided statistics to the Supreme Court in Roe to help support that decision. He was also the former director of New York’s City’s Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, the largest abortion clinic in the world at the time. In the late 1970’s he turned against abortion to become a prominent pro-life advocate, wrote Abortion America, and produced the powerfully revealing video, “The Silent Scream.” He later admitted that the statistics he presented to the high court were intentionally misrepresented. Dr. Nathanson wrote: ” I believe with all my heart that there is a divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.”

Roe v. Wade and the continued devaluation of the unborn continues to prod the moral conscience of Americans.

Pro-lifers understand that they can’t fully appreciate all abortion decisions nor the wrenchingly difficult dilemmas presented by their particular situations – such as those made by an ill-informed 16-year-old who made an impulsive decision or was coerced, or a college student who has an education ahead of her, or an unwed mother who can’t afford to feed or take care of another child, or a woman who has had non-consensual sex, but they don’t believe the solution lies in a deliberate act of destruction of human life. They don’t believe an otherwise viable and living fetus should be killed because of inconvenience – or for any other reason, for that matter. There are options and resources. There is education and common sense. There is a lifestyle built on decent moral values, discipline, and priorities.

Pro-choice groups, on the other hand, believe that a woman should have access to whatever health care she needs and that she should have control over her own body. Of course, as Ronald Reagan once commented: “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion is already born.” Finally, there is the issue of state intervention and to what degree the state should have a say in a pregnancy.

There are some women (pro-choice) who believe that they have a fundamental civil right to have complete control over her fertility and therefore she should have the freedom to decide whether she wants to continue or terminate her pregnancy. Others simply want the right to an abortion to undue something they aren’t capable or ready to deal with. Some have a change of heart and want to postpone having a baby until a future time. As Frederica Mathewes-Green explained: “No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.” Yet we all know that abortion is often performed with less consideration than that. It is often a woman’s choice of birth control…. birth control after the fact. Sometimes many months after the fact.

Pro-choice for women means no-choice for men.

Career women overwhelmingly side with the pro-choice view. Women who consider themselves pro-life have typically been stereotyped as church-going women and those who are stay-at-home wives and mothers. They are often portrayed as not really needing the option of an abortion. In 2008, my husband and I attended a rally at East Carolina University for John McCain. Sarah Palin was the speaker. Although most of us thought the event would be mobbed by Obama supporters in protest of Ms. Palin’s visit, there were no such mobs. In fact, the only protesters we saw were those who stood across the street carrying plenty of signs calling for the right of women to have an abortion if she chooses. As we were walking on the campus to the event, we saw a woman walking out of one of the University buildings, wearing a nice tailored suit, and asked if we were walking in the right direction. She made a snide comment about Sarah Palin and as we continued on our way, she shouted this to me: “You can’t be a successful woman if you don’t support abortion rights.” Am I to believe that in order to be successful and respected in today’s world, the innocent unborn might need to be sacrificed? Am I to believe that in order to be successful and respected, a woman must knowingly set aside the laws that God asks us to respect? Is that what it means to be successful? I don’t think so.

In fact, I have these few words to say to those career women who gladly sacrifice the fruits of their womb for a chance to be a player in the business world —

Just like Jesus was born to save those who believe, my children saved me. They saved me from a selfish, loveless life dominated by a career that often chews you up and spits you out. When I finished graduate school, when I was in my 20s and into my early 30s, I planned for a life of great accomplishment. I was going to be a great scientist. I was going to help understand the molecular basis of cancer and maybe find a cure. There was nothing inside me urging me to get married and start a family. In fact, at that point in my life, I didn’t want children. And I was hoping I would find a man who would want the same. But God knew better. He knew more about my heart than I did. And he blessed me with a child right after I got married. I admit I was scared. I had no maternal instincts whatsoever (but was great with animals) and wasn’t sure I would know what to do. But the minute I saw my daughter’s beautiful face and helpless body, I was hooked. I knew I would love this little child every minute of my life. When I saw her fragile little body and the way she was so uncoordinated and didn’t know how to do the simplest of things, I knew I wanted to care for her and keep her safe and comforted for as long as I was able to do so. By the time I left the hospital, I had already circled the dates I would try to conceive my next child. And only in having children of my own was I able to appreciate the depths of the unconditional and eternal love my own parents have for me. And that is the true meaning of life. It is the true circle of life. And like a circle, the love between parents and children are never-ending, just as God’s love is for all of us.

To any woman unsure of her lot in life, I would offer this heartfelt advice: Don’t make the mistake of thinking a career or anything else of such material worth is more valuable than the life-long love you experience and the life lesson you learn from being a parent.

The way I see it, the killing of an innocent viable fetus is utterly and fundamentally it is opposed to everything we stand for as a nation guided by Natural Law and memorialized under Christian values. The right to life is the foundation of every other human right that we hold so dear in this country. We hold vigils, we protest, and we march for the rights of violent criminals. We claim to be a compassionate society. We claim it is too inhumane to put to death, albeit painlessly, those who violently took the life of other human beings. Yet we support the violent murder of the live unborn. Our compassion stops at the womb. Winifred Egan noted: “What an irony that a society confronted with plastic bags filled with the remains of aborted babies should be more concerned about the problem of recycling the plastic.”

As Glenn Beck recently noted on his show: You can do jail time for killing an eagle’s egg, but you are protected for killing a human child in the mother’s womb. In our country the Bald Eagle is federally protected. And not just the living bald eagle but also the egg sitting in the nest. Anyone who tries to remove the egg or destroy it can be prosecuted by federal law. The only plausible explanation for criminal prosecution is that the taking of the egg or destruction of it prevents a bald eagle from being born. I have a question: How much more important is a child than an eagle?

We have an admirable history in this country of standing up for the inherent rights of human beings. We saw the injustice of enslaving Africans and treating them as property, and one of the reasons we fought a devastating Civil War was to correct that injustice. When we realized that women were treated as property and were degraded, we fought for their dignity and equality. Yet the most vulnerable of all in our society – our unborn children – are still being treated as property to be disposed of as we see fit. I am baffled by the ambiguity… we can’t commit to defining the unborn as a “human being” yet we call a woman “mother” or “Mom-to-be” upon the moment of conception and throughout her entire pregnancy we consider her to be “with child.”

I have a Christian friend Bryan who ponders the reasons we mistreat others and the reasons for it. He is right that it is easier to marginalize a person or group of people when we diminish their worth and demean their inherent value. We already see how people dehumanize those persons that offend them or that stand in their way ideologically and politically. It is in this way they can mistreat them, strip them of their dignity, their worth, their property, and their lives. We saw the Nazis do this to the Jews and the Japanese do this to the Chinese during World War II and the years leading up to it. The U.S. did it to the Indians when the settled with West, the KKK did it to the blacks, and we do it today with the unborn under the guise of “woman’s choice.”

I remember an interview that Sean Hannity did with a young woman named Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor. I remember listening to what this miraculous woman had to say, which she did so very gracefully and eloquently, and having my eyes swollen with tears. Her message is the one people need to talk about.

On Sept. 15, 2008, Gianna addressed a crowd at Queen’s Hall, Parliament House, in Victoria, Australia. She spoke on the eve of the debate that was to take place as to whether to de-criminalize abortion in Victoria and this is what she said:

“I’m adopted. My biological mother was 17. So was my father. My biological mother was 7½ months pregnant when she decided to go to Planned Parenthood, which is the largest abortion provider in the world. They counseled her to have a late-term saline abortion which is a procedure where a saline (salt) solution is injected into the mother’s womb, where the baby ingests it. The baby is burned inside and out and the mother is then able to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours. But to everyone’s great shock and surprise, I didn’t arrive dead, but alive. I was born on April 6, 1977 in a Los Angeles County abortion clinic. What’s fantastic about this, about the perfect timing of my arrival, is that the abortionist was not on duty yet. So he wasn’t even given the opportunity to continue on with his plan for my life – which was death. And I know that I am in a government building, and a beautiful one it is at that, and I love your country as well as my own, but I know that in the age we live in, it is not at all politically correct to say the name Jesus Christ in places like this. It’s not politically correct to bring him into these types of meetings because his name can make people so terribly uncomfortable. But I didn’t survive to make people comfortable. I survived so I can stir things up a bit, and I have a great time doing just that.

So I was delivered alive, as I said, after 18 hours. I should be blind, I should be burned, I should be dead. And yet I’m not. Do you want to hear a fantastic vindication? The abortion doctor had to sign my birth certificate. So I know who he is. And it also says in my birth records, for any skeptic listening, ‘Born during saline abortion.’ They didn’t win. I’ve done some research on the man who performed the abortion on me and his clinics are the largest chain of clinics in the US; they gross over $70 million each year. I read a quote from him several years ago: ‘I have aborted over a million babies. I consider it my passion.’ I tell you these things because we are involved in an interesting battle in the world. It is a battle between life and death… of good and evil. What side are you on?

A nurse called an ambulance and had me transferred to a hospital, which is absolutely miraculous. Generally, the practice at the time in my country, and up until 2002, was to end the life of an abortion survivor – by strangulation, suffocation, leaving the baby there to die, or throwing it away. But on August 5, 2002, the extraordinary President Bush signed into law the ‘Born Alive Infants Protection Act’ to prevent that from occurring anymore.

I’m hoping to be hated by the time that I die so that I can feel God about me and understand what it was like to be hated. I mean, Christ was hated…truly hated by those whose existence he threatened. Like me. It’s not that I look forward to being hated and I already know that along my journey, I’m already hated. I’m hated because I declare life. I declare: ‘You didn’t get me. The Silent Holocaust didn’t win over me.’ And my mission, ladies and gentlemen, among many things, is this: to infuse humanity into a debate that ignores it… to infuse humanity into a debate that we have compartmentalized. We have removed our emotions from the debate. Do you really want that? How much are you willing to take and how much are you willing to risk to speak the truth, in love and graciousness, and to stand up and at least be willing to be hated? Or at the end of the day, is it all about you?

And so, after I was born, I was placed in an emergency foster care home where they decided they didn’t like me very much. I don’t know how they could not adore me right from the start. What was wrong with those people? But they didn’t like me. They couldn’t learn to love me. You see, I’ve been hated since conception, by so many…. but loved by so many more, and especially by God. I’m his girl. You don’t mess around with God’s girl. I have a sign on my forehead that says: ‘You better be nice to me because my Father runs the world.’

After I was placed in the mean home, I was taken out of the mean home and placed into a new home – a beautiful home… Penny’s home. And Penny said that by this time, I was 17 months old, 32 pounds of dead weight, and diagnosed with what I consider the gift of cerebral palsy, which was caused directly by the lack of oxygen to my brain while I was trying to survive. How I am compelled to say this: If abortion is merely about women’s rights, what were mine? There were no radical feminists standing up and yelling about how my rights were being violated that day. In fact, my life was being snuffed out in the name of women’s rights. And, ladies and gentlemen, I would not have cerebral palsy had I not survived what I did, so when I hear the appalling, disgusting argument that we should have abortions because the child just might be disabled… Ugh… The horror that fills my heart.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are things that you will only be able to learn from the weakest among us and when you snuff them out, you are the ones that lose. The Lord looks after them, but you are the ones who will suffer forever from their loss. And what arrogance… what absolute arrogance in the argument that has been made for so long in this human place that we live in that the stronger should dominate the weaker. That they should determine who lives and who dies. I can’t believe the arrogance in that. Don’t you realize that you can’t even make your own heart beat? Don’t you realize that all the power that you think you possess you really possess none of it. It is only the mercy of God that sustains you – even when you hate him.

So they looked at my dear Penny and they said: ‘Gianna will never be anything,’ which is always encouraging. But Penny decided to ignore them and she worked with me three times a day. To make a long story short, I was walking by 3½ with a walker and braces, and I stand up here today before you with a mild little limp and without a walker and without braces. I fall gracefully sometimes and very ungracefully other times, but I consider it all for the glory of God. You see ladies and gentlemen, I am weaker than most of you, but this is my sermon. What a small price to pay to be able to blaze through the world as I do and offer hope. And I think in our misunderstanding of how things work, we misunderstand how beautiful suffering can be. I don’t suggest that you willing sign up for it, but when it comes, we forget that God is in control and He often has a way of making the most miserable thing beautiful.

I have met my biological mother. I have forgiven my biological mother. I am a Christian. She is a very broken woman. She came to an event that I was having two years ago. She showed up unannounced and said: ‘Hello, I’m your mother.’ It was a very difficult day and yet, as I was sitting there, I kept thinking: ‘I don’t belong to you. I belong to Christ. He loves me. I’m his girl and he treats me like a princess.’

So, ladies and gentlemen, you have an opportunity. But for just one moment, I’d like to speak just to the men in this room: Men, you are made for greatness. You are made to stand up and be men. You are made to defend women and children and not stand by and turn your head when you know murder is occurring and do nothing about it. You are not made to use women and leave them alone. You are made to be kind and great and gracious and strong, and to stand for something. Men, listen to me… I’m too tired to keep doing your job.

Women, you are not made for abuse. You are not made to deny your worth and your value. You are made to be fought for.. forever.

So now is your moment…. What sort of people are you going to be? I trust incredible. I trust, men, that you will rise to the occasion. To the politicians listening, particularly to the men, I would say this: You are made for greatness. Set your politics aside. You are made to defend what is right and good. This fiery young girl will stand here and say: ‘Now is your moment. What sort of man do you want to be? Are you going to be a man obsessed with his own glory or a man obsessed with the glory of God? It’s time to take a stand, Victoria. This is your hour. God will assist you. God will be with you. You will have the opportunity to glorify and honor Him in 2008.’

I will just end with this. Some of you might be slightly annoyed that I keep talking about God and Jesus. But how on earth can I walk about, limping, through this world and not give all my heart and my mind and my soul and my spirit and my strength to the Christ who showed me mercy and gave me life. So if you think I’m a fool, it’s just another jewel in my crown. My whole intent in living here is simply to make God smile.

I hope some of this makes sense. It just came from my heart. May God bless and keep you.”

Wow. Imagine living your life knowing you weren’t wanted, and even worse, that of all the options available, death was the most convenient.

Simply put, the abortion of a viable fetus is the thoughtful premeditated decision to take the life of another human being. Out on the streets we call it first-degree murder – a capital crime.

God created us and gave us the gift of life. He gave us our free will and fundamental liberties yet set limits on them. We know these limitations from reading the Bible.

In this country alone, we acknowledge that our fundamental rights and liberties derive from God and his benevolent nature. And only those fundamental rights are the ones protected by the Constitution. The right to take the life of a viable fetus would never be a right granted by our Creator.

Instead of conforming their behavior to God’s expectations, it is much easier to deny the role that God has played in our founding. It is much easier to take the watchful eye of God out of society and all reminders of his laws. Instead of people looking to God’s law and conforming their behavior accordingly, they live their lives as a complete free-for-all and then seek to invalidate God’s law to absolve themselves of their immoral acts.

Mother Teresa once asked: “If we can accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?”

I may not know the precise moment when life happens, but it is indeed miraculous — that moment when the miracle of life occurs, like a switch being flipped, when life all of a sudden infuses a mass of cells. Unlike all other living things which man has been granted “dominion over,” only man shares that special bond with God for he is blessed with a deep and quick intelligence, foresight, a complex memory, advanced reason, and profound wisdom. And so we know God loves us. This is why we are supposed to always respect and celebrate this bond we have with God.

So what happens when a woman is carrying a viable fetus and wants to abort that unborn child? She presents quite a dilemma to God, doesn’t she. On the one hand it is her body. Yet on the other hand, she was created to be able to bring children into the world. And still on the other hand, there is the fetus, the growing child, who, although has been miraculously infused with life only asks for a few short months of shelter and support in the mother’s womb. While God indeed loves all his children, we know from the Bible that He has a particular bond to those who are helpless. He wants us to do what he would do.

Mother Teresa once said: “There are two victims in every abortion: a dead baby and a dead conscience.” She also commented: “It’s a shame that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

I was thinking about what this country stands for – Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. There is one thing for sure when it comes to our Founders – they meant what they wrote and they wrote what they meant. Words mattered to them and the order of words mattered. The sentence structure dictated the exact meaning. “Life” is listed first.

What happened to our nation’s foundation? What happened to the “innate rights of human beings,” defined by those 7 words – “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” – that our Founders worked so hard to embrace and protect in our Constitutional and to engrain in our national fiber? A living fetus living inside a woman’s uterus has no rights under our laws or Constitution yet homosexual men have the fundamental right to sodomy. California says there is a fundamental right to marry a same-sex partner, in contradiction to both the laws of nature and the Bible. According to Roe v. Wade, women have the fundamental right to an abortion on demand (up until the last trimester) yet according to Judge Roger Vinson, the district court judge for the Northern District of Florida in the case of the 20 states against Obamacare (Florida v. Sebelius, Oct. 14, 2010), there is no fundamental right in general for a person to determine his or her own medical treatment. Where is our collective conscience? Where is our moral compass pointing these days? Why is it so important that women have the right to terminate a life inside them without condition?

Our society is so uptight about religion in anyplace other than within the church walls or in the home where no one has to know about it. They cry “Wall of Separation” to demand that religion be removed from the sphere of government and absent from the thought process. Religion and morality have no place in the legislative process or in the halls of justice, they cry. Yet the “Wall of Separation” equally demands that government can’t support a position that denies God’s law. Government may not endorse religion or promote religion over non-religion, yet every decision either has to fall on one side or another, doesn’t it. Every decision is someone’s moral judgment or reflects someone’s view of religion/non-religion. Obama and Nancy Pelosi want Obamacare to cover abortions. They refused to include language preventing government funding for abortion. Well, that’s a moral and religious stand. Government is endorsing an absence of religion. Government currently funds Planned Parenthood, the largest national supplier of abortions. Again, that’s a position that has the government supporting non-religion.

We all sense that our country is on the verge of being overwhelmed by the many complicated issues, challenges, and crises it faces. The results of November 2 were the result of such a sense of urgency. We know that when men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, George Washington, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and so many others guided us towards independence and founded this great country… despite their personalities and their varying individual religious beliefs, they acknowledged that the success of their fragile endeavor rested firmly on the grace of God. They invoked the blessings of Divine Providence in government and for over 100 years we prospered greatly. And then we took God out of national life and then ignored him in making our laws.

We are going to need to ask God’s help and His divine providence if we are to pull through the crises – moral, political, and Constitutional – that we face. But first we need to let Him know that his laws are still in our hearts and minds. And the compassion and loyalty we seek from Him is the same we show to our fellow human beings. As Pope John Paul II said: “America you are blessed . . . . The ultimate test of your greatness is the way you treat every human being, but especially the weakest and most defenseless. If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life.”

In closing, I want to share something that touched me when I read it:

“Elegy To The Unborn” by Dr. James R. McLane

One starlit night
As I gazed into the heavens
I knew each star was created by God.
The ocean of stars above me
Spoke of the sea of humanity
Around me and I realized,
I too was created with purpose.
I was created to be born alive
To run and play, to laugh and cry
To work and to grow old.
But most of all
To show love amidst hatred
And to bring hope in despair.
Each one of us was created
With this purpose
And our mother’s womb
Became our passageway,
Our first universe.
From the moment of conception
The light of God breathed forth
An immortal soul,
A new human being of untold value.
As the beauty of the stars shone
I cried for my fellow man,
For millions of unborn babies
Had been crushed by humanity
And discarded as garbage.
Let us turn to the glory of Jesus
So all mothers and their unborn
Might be embraced by humanity
To bring glory unto God.

FURTHER READING:
See: Ronald Reagan, “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation,” The Human Life Review, Spring 1983. Reference at: http://old.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp

by Diane Rufino, Sept. 13, 2010

In 1787, a group of brilliant Americans met in Philadelphia with the task of setting up a government to effectively manage a union of independent and sovereign states. What they gave us would lay the foundation for the greatest nation on Earth. Our forefathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. With the understanding that our liberties come from our Creator and not from any country or governmental body, our Founders devised a governmental scheme based on the grand notion that the government’s fundamental purpose is to respect and protect those liberties. Invoking Divine Providence, our Constitution embodied the most noble and productive philosophies, embodied the moral code set out in the Declaration of Independence, embodied principles of fairness, and respected a division of power whereby the majority remained with the individual states where it was closer to the individual. The document came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of persons who emigrated from Europe and far-off lands in the hope of a life without oppression from their government.

For almost one hundred years, the Negro was not free under that Constitution. While every master of slaves was indeed a petty tyrant, this gross indiscretion before God was ignored in order that local economies could continue to flourish. Little did they realize that their conduct would bring the judgment of Heaven upon our nation. Providence would punish national sin by a national calamity. Our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln knew that a house divided against itself could not stand, with the Declaration of Independence protecting the liberties of white men but not black men. He knew the country could not endure half slave and half free.

He would neither allow it to become permanently divided nor dissolved. And consequently, we engaged in a great Civil War which was costly in terms of human lives and which tested whether this great nation, so conceived and dedicated to liberty, would be able to long endure. And so with malice towards none and charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, brothers and cousins, neighbors and fellow citizens tended to the task of binding up the nation’s wounds and welcoming former slaves as our brethren. Yet it didn’t go quite that smoothly and our darker brethren continued to feel indignation and continued to crippled by the stigma of segregation and the chains of discrimination. For one hundred years, the Negro continued to languish in the corners of American society and find himself an exile in his own land. When the Civil Rights Amendments were passed, he was given a promissory note to the same inalienable rights of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” that every other citizen of the nation enjoyed. But rather than honoring that note, it came back to them marked “Insufficient Funds.” The nation had defaulted on its promissory note.

In 1963, Martin Luther King led a March on Washington DC, carrying that note and demanding that it be paid in full. They arrived at the nation’s capital to cash their check. And the March helped bring our House closer together. All Americans supported that movement because it was the right and honorable thing to do. And laws were then enacted and walls were finally torn down. Massive programs were put in place to help Negros move out of poverty and take their rightful place alongside their lighter-skinned brothers and sisters.

Unfortunately, the programs lasted too long and instead of moving Negros out of poverty, they kept them in poverty. Rather than transitioning them to the point where their individual liberties would build them and define them, they kept them from the true enjoyment and appreciation of liberty. The government , beginning in the Depression era, and then continuing in the Civil Rights era, began to see its role as one to take care of individuals cradle to grave, rather than stay out of their lives so that the true spirit of freedom could uplift and invigorate. It was at that time that the role of government began to fundamentally change from the one that our Founders had envisioned, for every time citizens look to the government to take care of them, they gradually give up some of their liberties. Every time citizens demonstrate that they can’t do for themselves, the government feels justified in getting involved and then taking away fundamental rights of choice and privacy, including parenting, education, and health.

As the government continued to grow, it naturally needed to reach further in our pockets and burden our lives. Soon the government no longer respected the words of the Declaration of Independence which demanded that at everyone’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ie, property) be protected equally. This time distinctions weren’t made on race but on “character,” the very trait that Martin Luther King urged should be the determinant of respect. Those Americans obeying the laws, working hard, paying taxes, getting an education, raising their children properly, and investing in their property and planning for a quiet retirement have been the ones the government has targeted for disparate treatment. Their property means nothing to the government. Their precious time means nothing to the government. Their sacrifices mean nothing to the government. And their patriotic duty to the well-ordered functioning of this country means nothing. Soon the government’s role morphed into one that punished people for doing all the right and noble things and rewarded those who made no contribution to the nation. It began servicing certain citizens heavily yet making others pay for it. For the sake of effecting societal change, our branches of government broke the very rules they were sworn to uphold. For the sake of effecting societal change, the government and our courts have disregarded the very fundamental principles that have made this nation great and have dismantled the very Constitution they were supposed to be beholden to. They disregarded one of their most important constitutional duties – that of checks and balances. They were supposed to maintain the integrity of the Constitution by keeping careful limitations on one another’s power. And for the sake of having the government take care of everything, the very last element in the chain of checks and balances, the citizen himself, also abdicated his duty. He forgot his duty to be educated, to know his history and his civics lessons, to put his country first, to be a responsible voter, and even more, to be a responsible citizen and human being.

In the beginning, settlers came to America’s shores as wild animals, with a thirst for freedom and with inherent (innate) instincts for survival and preservation. They fought fiercely and tirelessly for their freedoms because those freedoms meant more to them than life itself. And in time they saw that all was good. Other wild animals continued to come to her shores,… beaten , repressed, starved, hunted….. all wanting to be those wild and free animals that God meant them to be. They embraced the liberty they found here. Filled with the spirit of freedom, they gladly integrated with the wild animals here and figured out how they could do their part to contribute.

But then came a time of excess when their instincts had paid off and their communities were flourishing. There were agitators among them. There were those who refused to do their part. There were predators. And the government was called upon to step in and smooth over these problems. In order to keep the growing population even-tempered and free from turbulence, liberties were gradually burdened. As the wild animals no longer felt the need to hunt and protect themselves, because the government would be there to do it for them, they didn’t even notice that the government gradually moved them into cages. Americans – once wild and proud animals, with the instincts of freedom and preservation, were now caged animals, being cared for by the government… the caretaker. We have been well taken care of but we’ve been neutered. We’ve been disassociated from the likes of those animals that came to these shores in the 1600’s and 1700’s and 1800’s. We’ve lost the ability to recognize those rights that come from God as being fundamental to our free existence. And since we’ve lost the ability to even recognize those rights, we’ve lost the “killer instinct” to fight to preserve them. Our Founding Fathers would surely shed many tears to see what weak-hearted, well-kept, neutered animals we have become. Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis (leader of the Confederacy) sent a nation full of young men to fight one another over their versions of fundamental liberties. In 1941, parents, friends, girlfriends couldn’t hold young men back from enlisting in the serve to fight those evil forces in the world who wanted to deprive Americans of their rights of life and liberty and to enslave them in some world order based on Japanese and Nazi domination. And they fought just as ferociously to free the good people of Europe and Africa from the same fates. Tyranny is something American “animals” had no tolerance for. Unfortunately, now they do.

The caged spirit… that lifeless, wounded, uninspired, unmotivated, amputated spirit is what has allowed this nation to become what it has today.. the nanny state. Zoo keepers have become part of our everyday lives.

But some have found the strength and the conviction to break free of their cages and to go back out on the prowl and to defend the liberties that allow them to soar again. They are the members of the Tea Party movement. These are the ones who value our fundamental liberties and value the brilliance of our Founders and our original Constitution.

The Tea Party is a truly unique grassroots movement. It doesn’t have a leader but rather has bubbled up from the people themselves. A disconcerted people have recognized their obligation to get the country back on track, mainly for their children and grandchildren’s sake, and for posterity’s sake. Thomas Jefferson indeed has immortalized our true American entitlement: “All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” but he also gave us charged us with a solemn civic duty: “… to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter it…” And the government has finally become destructive of its ends. Instead of protecting and respecting our individual rights, it has stifled and ignored them. All men are entitled to the “pursuit of happiness,” but apparently the pursuit of happiness for too many comes at the cost of denying it to others. We also have recognized that we cannot continue to expect God’s charitable blessings on our nation when we have so boldly turned against him.
And so we grew, and we organized, and we marched.

We peacefully marched on Washington last year, on 9/12, to let our government know that we were not pleased with its socialist programs and its defiance of the Constitution and founding principles. We attended the protest of an unconstitutional healthcare bill that allows the government to extend its power over the individual to unprecedented levels. While we protested, our President sat in a closed session in the very Capitol Building we stood outside of, trying to convince Congressmen to sell their souls and vote for his bill. We were indeed disgusted that our own President, knowing full well what the American people wanted, decided to go that extra mile to make additional backdoor deals to make sure the people were robbed of their voice. They took our votes and they swore an oath. They made a tacit agreement to represent our interests. They swore an oath to defend the Constitution and not destroy its integrity. They honored nothing. Every Congressman who made a deal and betrayed the people disgraced the institution and devalued our republic that day.

We attended the Restoring Honor Rally in Washington DC on August 28 in a sign of solidarity and to make a tacit pledge to do all we can to restore honor and dignity to this country. We noticed how well-intentioned individuals from all states took time out of their hectic schedules to come together to embrace God and to embrace those good and honorable principles that have made America great. Tired as we were, we attended this year’s 9/12 rally as well. We needed to show that this movement is here to stay and we’re not going anywhere. There are decent and freedom-loving people all over this nation who can’t get out and march and who can’t even speak openly without criticism, scorn, or consternation. Some even fear retribution. They look to us for hope and for inspiration. Part of the reason we march is for them. Freedom is worth fighting for. Freedom is always worth fighting for.

When it comes to fundamental American principles and respect to the Constitution that has made this country great and a beacon for all who desire freedom, and which has given each of us the freedom to be all that we can be, we hope that all people, regardless of all color, will feel the swell of patriotism. We pray to the God of Unity above that the hopes and dreams of man are truly those that are color-blind. We pray that the hopes and dreams of man, of all man, are those of unfettered liberty and righteous justice.

It was indeed fitting and proper that Glenn Beck chose to hold the rally at the Lincoln Memorial, the site honoring one of our greatest Americans… a man devoted to the proposition that all men are created equal and endowed with the same freedoms, and even more, are endowed with an equal desire to exercise those freedoms. Lincoln was a man who gave his last full measure to freeing men from bondage and uniting the country “with malice towards none and charity for all.” It was Lincoln who invoked God’s Providence, and saw the strength in unity. He said: “In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free – honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best, hope of earth.” Lincoln understood that as a nation we could not continue to ask for God’s blessing while we retained the evil institution of slavery. “Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces.”

The Restoring Honor Rally, designed to restore the honor that once defined us as a nation, is rooted above all else, in the heart and soul of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s spirit of honor and unity is what drives the heart of the grassroots efforts. The Lincoln Memorial, with Lincoln poised in his chair for strength and for compassion looking out over a reflecting pond so he can forever reflect upon the sacrifices of so many men (brothers and cousins) and upon the nation he fought so hard to preserve, calls us to reflect as well on what is important. Abraham Lincoln showed us how one man, with good and noble intentions, and inspired by God, can change the world. Imagine what millions can do.

We are involved in a new civil war, but it’s not the kind fought with guns and knives. It’s being fought by insidious ideology and insults. And as Lincoln said: “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” And the result of this new civil war will determine whether this nation will be able to long endure. And Glenn Beck was absolutely right to call Americans together to honor those who have given us everything we enjoy and everything that enables us to love freely and develop ourselves to our fullest potential – God, our Founders, and our military. “That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Make no mistake, in this great struggle, our form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if we don’t restore the values and principles our Founders felt were vital to a free nation. These principles include the acknowledgement that there is indeed a Creator and that our rights come from Him. The God who has given us our rights has also given us limits on how to exercise them, for a disciplined, honorable, and loving existence. Aside from an acknowledgement of God, other fundamental principles recognized by our Founders and embraced in our original Constitution include limited government, free markets, fiscal responsibility, limited taxation, personal responsibility, moral and ethical representation, adherence to the Constitution, respect for property, and equality in the administration of government.

The design of our government, as given to us by our Founders, was precisely to make sure that our fundamental rights will always be respected and protected. Everything about its design, from the preamble and reference to the Declaration of Independence, to the grant of limited and specific powers, to our Bill or Rights, to the Tenth Amendment, to the existence of three branches of government , and to our system of checks and balances speaks to the ultimate desire of our Founders to protect our fundamental liberties from government intrusion and to the acknowledgement that these liberties come from something, in the over-all scheme of existence, that supersedes the state in its ultimate authority. Our Creator. The greatest grant of political power was always to remain with the states where it is closest to the people. The powers of the federal government are indeed limited and clearly defined and any attempt to enlarge these powers burdens the people in their rights. The limited powers of the government basically ensure that it will establish justice, will provide for our national security (common defense), will insure domestic tranquility, and promote the “General Welfare” – but only within the enumerated powers that are listed in Article I, Section 8, and therefore not without bounds, and certainly without discretion. All men are created equal and endowed with equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property), and as such, are entitled to an equal protection of their rights by the government. As Patrick Henry told us: “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 comes to dominate our lives and interests.”

Again pointing to our Founder’s obsession with protecting fundamental liberties, we must not forget the important advice that Thomas Jefferson gave us: “Whenever the government becomes destructive of the ends for which the Declaration of Independence was created and ratified, the people have the right to alter it or abolish it and to form a new government to properly and fairly secure their safety and pursuit of happiness.”

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of this particular moment in time. It would be fatal to disregard the fact that we are engaged in a new civil war. This struggle is indeed the calling of our generation. For hundreds of years, men have been called to fight to preserve our nation and our way of life. Our young men and women serve and sacrifice their lives all over the globe in defense of our principles. Now we are being asked to give these men and women something worth fighting for. Be assured that there will be neither be rest nor tranquility in America until our government deviates from its current course of personal oppression and national destruction and restores honor and integrity to the nation of our Founders’ creation. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

The marvelous new passion which has engulfed the conservative community must not lead us to a distrust of all people who don’t march and protest and meet with us, for many of our brothers, including our black brothers, must come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they must realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. As a very old and very tired Benjamin Franklin was leaving the building where, after four months of hard work, the Constitution had been completed and signed, a lady asked him what kind of government the convention had created. The very wise Franklin replied; “A Republic, ma’am if you can keep it.” Well, we are fighting to keep that republic….. all of us… whites and blacks, Gentiles and Jews, Protestants and Catholics.
We cannot walk alone. We should not walk alone. Most of all, we must not turn back.

There are those who are asking the conservatives who want a return to productive principles and constitutional governance: “When will you be satisfied?” We answer by saying that we can never be satisfied as long as our fundamental liberties remain subservient to the wishes and goals of a government no longer guided, respectful, and beholden to our Constitution. We can never be satisfied as long as we, heavy with the fatigue of work , education, raising a family, taking care of our property, and being involved and serving our communities, are required to baby-sit and monitor the counterproductive, dishonorable, and unethical conduct of our elected officials. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their inherent entitlement to the American dream. We can never be satisfied as long as our vote is diluted by a group of Americans who vote without conscious, along racial lines rather according to morality and substantive issues, and especially without having any financial stake in the workings of government. We can never be satisfied when voting, like all social programs, has become insidiously infested with fraud and intimidation.

Many have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Many have had to step out of their comfort zones. Many have put aside their pursuits of greater employment. Many have taken time away from their families, and many have taken a lot of money away from their families’ dinner table and vacation fund to support the different conservative efforts to take back this country and restore her to her former greatness. For too long we have only been able to stand at the base of the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial. We have only been able to stand just outside the WWII Memorial….. For we have not been worthy to walk up and enjoy fellowship with these great leaders and great Americans. But now we are. As Glenn Beck’s reminded us: “Recognize that Moses and Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were men. They were men just like you. They just picked up their stick. Don’t stand and look to someone else. Pick up your stick and stand.”

So Patriots, let us go back to Pennsylvania (birthplace of our Constitution), to Virginia (the birthplace of our freedoms and site of some of the most fierce and gruesome fighting of the Civil War), to New York (site of the greatest attack upon us as Americans), and to every corner of the country, knowing that somehow, only through perseverance and through the Grace of God, our current situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in despair. Let us not wallow in the despair of a country that has become governmentally oppressive, financially irresponsible, and ideologically hijacked. Let us not wallow in the despair of a country that has abandoned God, has become morally depraved, and seeks to dominate its subjects. Let us not despair in a nation where our government, through its policies of righteous indignation and social redistribution, seeks to deny those freedoms to those who wish to exercise them to pursue a productive and blessed way of life… Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you this day, my friends, that in spite of our current administration’s desire to lead us down the road to socialism (the destructive philosophy that has doomed many a great nation) and in spite of the counterintuitive policies that rock the very foundations of our beloved Constitution and the fundamental principles established by our Founding Fathers to ensure for our unfettered freedoms and for our eternal existence as a nation, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that the desire for unfettered fundamental liberty is a dream that unites all Americans behind the one true vision – the vision of our Founding Fathers. It is a dream that will unite us in this struggle to take back our nation.

I have a dream that Americans, in respecting and appreciating that our rights and liberties come from God, will exercise those rights in accordance with his laws. For although God endowed us with great personal freedom, He also set limitations on those freedoms.

I have a dream that those who exercise the very rights endowed by the Creator and protected by a Constitution that was inspired by the Creator will not continue to demand that our nation show complete indifference to Him.

I have a dream that all Americans will appreciate and value the supreme sacrifice of men and women who gave their lives to establish this nation and to fight for every one of the values that we hold so precious and vital. Americans have always believed that fundamental liberty is not just the inherent right of every American, but it is the inherent right of every human being, for our Declaration of Independence taught them that. It is always worth fighting for. And with every word we speak freely, especially in criticism of our government, with every prayer we can speak in public without retribution, with every assembly we enjoy, with every personal choice we are allowed to make, with every vote we can cast, and with every child we can raise with hope and dreams, may we eternally thank those who have preserved all that for us.

I have a dream that leaders of this nation will justify our laws strictly with our Constitution and with our Declaration of Independence, and will always err on the side of liberty.

I have a dream that one day people will break free from the intimidation of their churches and communities and vote their conscience and not along racial lines. Liberty has no face, color, creed, or religion.

I have a dream that people of all races will realize that racial division prevents us from advancing the real issues of our generation, which is national decay and national survival. I have a dream that one day we will all realize that not every choice based on race represents racism and is not meant to divide but to serve legitimate national goals.

I have a dream that all people will understand that they need to have a sufficient financial stake in the running of the government for there to be true equality in this country. There is no fairness in voting to spend other people’s money.

I have a dream that the energy the government invests to protect the rights of the poor and address their issues will be the same energy it invests to protect the rights of the wealthy and address their issues. One person’s right to pursue an education and pursue wealth is the same as another person’s right to ignore education and be slothful.

I have a dream that just as God respects the inherent worth of every human being equally so too will our government. Just as God wishes and encourages that each human being will advance himself to be the very best person he can be and live the very best life that he can live, I have a dream that we too as a nation, as we once did and as our Founders envisioned, should encourage this same exemplary conduct.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be labeled by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream that my four children will not be punished for the endless hours they’ve poured into their education in order to have a developed mind and a successful career. According to Thomas Jefferson, intellectual achievements, choice of career and success in such, and business reputation are all examples of one’s property and are to be protected and not confiscated and re-distributed.

I have a dream that our government recognizes that charity comes from the heart and from our churches and not from legislature and from taxation.

I have a dream that our children and grandchildren with be entitled to the American dream without first being saddled by the debts of our country. Somewhere along the line, our government has forgotten our fundamental right to “the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Finally, I have a dream that Americans will never again feel too comfortable in that “cage” and will never again take their liberties and their Constitution for granted.

I went to Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally two weeks ago, and then got right back into my van and drove back up to Washington D.C. for the 9/12 Rally. Beck told me to pick up my stick and I did. I went to DC, just as hundreds of thousands of other weary and exhausted Americans did – to be counted and to make sure that those in government know that the Tea Party movement is here to stay and it isn’t going anywhere. The Silent Majority is silent no more.

While the 9/12 Rally last year was organized by Glenn Beck, this year’s rally was organized and conducted by FreedomWorks and a coalition of Tea Party groups that included several national and local Tea Party organizations. Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project also was involved. For those who aren’t familiar with FreedomWorks, it is a conservative non-profit group based in the nation’s capital for the purpose of recruiting and training volunteers for events like the 9/12 rally. For those who aren’t familiar with the 9/12 Project, it is a non-political, personal responsibility group started by Glenn Beck and founded on principles and values. Just as its name suggests, it is founded on 9 principles and 12 values. [See the reference section].

While the rally may have been run a bit differently this year, the underlying goal is still as strong as ever. The goal of the 9/12 rally last year (specifically chosen on the anniversary of the most horrific attack on the US) was to “bring us all back to the place we were on September 12, 2001. The day after America was attacked we were not obsessed with red states, blue states, or political parties. We were united as Americans.” We should all be united as one when it comes to the fundamental interests of our country and not the interests of us as individuals. We have nothing if we don’t first have a strong country to protect us.

It’s been a long year since the 9/12 Rally of last year. A lot has changed. Most notably though, the Tea Party movement proved its longevity and solidified its significance and purpose. As FreedomWorks noted: “Where as last year was really kind of a coming out party for the national tea party movement – where we all gathered in the same place at the same time for the first time… All of the folks that came last year are now running local tea parties and really have built up the community back home where the real work needs to happen.”

The rally this year was about purpose and commitment. The Tea Party groups, as well as individual concerned citizens, came out to say that they will not be ignored. The Tea Party movement is here to stay. We are here now, we will be here on November 2, and we will still be here on November 3. In fact, this year’s rally was called “Remember in November.” As FreedomWorks explained: “It’s very political. It’s explicitly about politics. It’s about replacing bad officer holders with good office holders. Big government spenders will be replaced by small government conservatives.”

If anyone had any doubts that the rally was political, all they had to do was look at the signs. Each sign was more creative than the next. The issues ranged from Healthcare to Immigration, from tax reform to entitlement reform, from inflated government to inflated taxation, from government arrogance to government incompetence, from Cap & Trade to TARP (bail-outs), from runaway spending to running jobs out of the country, from lack of accountability to lack of morality, from a disregard of individual liberty to a disregard of the Constitution. Tea Party ingenuity was at its finest. Tea Party humor and grace were at its best. Even the portable toilets were duly decorated.

Speakers at the rally included headliners FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey, Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Andrew Breitbart, and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Emily Weaver, a high school senior from Pittsburgh sang the National Anthem in such a sweet and skilled operatic voice. It was such a treat.

The day’s events began amidst some rain and ominous clouds when protesters gathered the Washington Monument for a non-denominational service led by Reverend C.L. Bryant (who also spoke at last year’s rally). Bryant is a former NAACP member who is now a Tea Party leader. They then marched down Pennsylvania Ave. where they met up with another group which had gathered at the Freedom Plaza. Then together, they marched down the street, to a thankful and cheering crowd, to the Capitol building where they gathered around the steps of the magnificent building. Estimates have placed the number of the protesters at approximately 2/3 of the group that gathered last year.

Dick Armey, current chairman of FreedomWorks and former US Representative from Texas’s 26th congressional district (1985–2003) and House Majority Leader (1995–2003), and his wife, led off the rally.
“We do not have infinite resources in this country. This government is spending money it doesn’t have. We are in jeopardy of losing this country if we don’t stop the spending.”

“There’s only one power on Earth that is big enough to wreck this country, and that’s big government.” Quoting from Clint Eastwood’s film character Dirty Harry Callahan, Armey said: “A man’s got to know his limitations,” and added that it was time for the government to know its limitations.

Armey made reference to the Contract From America (see attached), which is a “contract” which lists 10 agenda items, voted upon by nationwide conservative groups, which they would like to see brought to a vote in the US Congress. These agenda items promote individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom. Those elected officials who seek the support of Tea Party groups, as well as other conservative groups, are asked to sign this Contract. The nice thing about this document is that it is a nationwide effort to make Washington more accountable to conservative principles. It helps remind us what we stand for as Tea Party members. It is a “bottom-up” document, meaning that it comes from the people, and that makes it all the more significant.

“The Democrats’ attitude is – ‘Sit down and shut up,’ ” Armey said. And perhaps it is this arrogance that fuels the Tea Party movement even further.

Mrs. Armey then took the microphone from her husband, and in a voice that began to choke up, pleaded: “I don’t want to die knowing that I was part of the generation that failed America. I don’t want to die knowing that I was part of the generation that lost this country.”

The next person to speak told protesters: “The Next Great American Revolution is about to begin !” He wanted to know if everyone was ready, and the crowd eagerly acknowledged that they are indeed.

My favorite part of the rally came when a Hispanic gentleman, Tito Munoz, took the microphone to speak. At first he announced that he forgot his speech but after a few seconds he was able to find it in his pocket. I had never heard of Munoz before, but it turns out that this gentleman is one of our most outspoken and passionate patriots. This past July, Munoz launched a conservative talk show for Hispanics in Virginia called “America Eres Tu” (America is YOU !) Tito is the Hispanic Joe the Plumber, and in fact, is referred to as “Tito the Builder.” His fiery speech on the steps of the capital is the one that got the crowds cheering and whistling.

Munoz addressed the crowd: “Nine years ago, on 9/11, I saw America being attacked. I said to my wife: ‘America needs my help.’ I decided to become an American citizen, and on September 27, 2008, I took the oath of citizenship and I to this day, I swear to defend this nation and the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. And we all know who the domestic enemies are !

Since then, I have a non-stop commitment to help protect our liberties. I have a job to do as an American…. to defend my country against tyranny and oppression. Obama’s policies burden our individual liberties and burden our economic freedom. Mr. President, I know who you are !! I know your socialistic philosophy. I know your Marxist-communist philosophy. I know your plan for our liberties and freedom. But know this… We will never surrender to your philosophy.

Mr. Obama, take off the mask and tell the American people that your plan is to replace life with life control, replace our abundant fundamental liberties with few liberties, and replace the pursuit of happiness with the pursuit of hand-outs. Your plan is to punish those that work hard and contribute and reward those that don’t contribute. Mr. President, you travel all over the world and you bow to kings and other leaders. The American people do not bow to anyone except God. We only go on our knees when we pray to God.

I came to America to make it on my own – not to be a burden on the country, on the economy, or the American people. I came here to produce and not to take away. I came here to help and to be part of this nation. I came here to life free… free from big government, free from socialist government, and free from the oppression of politicians like Nancy Pelosi and the man who sits in the White House.

I am here because I am fighting back. I want to remain free and never to surrender to you, Mr. Obama, or your regime. I am a freedom fighter ! As our Founding Fathers fought the British redcoats, today we fight the socialist redcoats in Washington ! A socialist society is a government-controlled society.

Mr. President, I am an American and NOT a Hispanic or a latino. I am an American citizen and NOT a government indentured servant. Mr. President, I am an American. My name is Tito Munoz. I was born in Columbia but I was made in the U.S.A. !!
God Bless America.”

Even though the day was dismal and overcast, spirits couldn’t have been brighter. Protesters were on genuinely happy to be in their nation’s capital, marching openly, and standing up for their country. It was a great afternoon for Tea Party folks to get together, for patriotic speeches, and for patriotic country music. Jon Davis performed ‘I’m American Made” and the Gatlin Brothers sang “God Bless America.” No one can ever accuse country singers of not loving their country.

After the Gatlin Brothers left center state, a leader of a Tea Party in Pennsylvania got up and told the protesters: “We are at a historic fork in the road. One direction leads to statism and the other direction leads back to small government, Constitutional government, to the principles our Founding Fathers, to liberty. If you are confused which direction to take, I’ll give you a hint….. It’s the Right direction.”

Representative Mike Pence was next to take the podium. He was the featured speaker of the day. He greeted the crowd with these words: “Welcome back to YOUR nation’s capital ! I’m sure the press will focus on numbers, but the only numbers that really matter are the numbers – 51, 218, and 1. In 51 days, there will be less than 218 Democrats elected to Congress and 1 liberal from San Francisco who will be out of a job !!”

He continued to saying: “The truth is that there is nothing that ails the government that couldn’t be solved by paying a little more attention to the Constitution of the United States. Luckily, the Pelosi-led Congress will soon be getting a crash course in what the term ‘consent of the governed’ means. We the governed do NOT consent to the government take-over of healthcare and we will not rest until we repeal Obamacare in its entirety. We do NOT consent to the run-away federal spending, by either party, and we demand an end to the bailouts once and for all. We do NOT consent to one more failed stimulus bill nor do we consent to higher taxes on any American during the worst economy in 25 years. Raising taxes on job creators won’t create jobs. And we will NOT compromise our economy to accommodate the class warfare rhetoric of the left and of this administration.

Times are tough. It’s becoming clearer every day. To paraphrase one of my heroes: ‘Depression is when you lose your job. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. And recovery is when Nancy Pelosi loses her job.

You’ve come to our nation’s capital at a historic moment in the life of this still-young republic… a nation conceived in liberty has come of age in bondage to big government. We’ve lost respect in the world and we’re going broke. The American Dream is dying for millions. And our social, cultural, and moral fabric is unraveling. People are scared. If we do not succeed in November, all that was once good and great about this country can someday be gone. But we will remember in November, and we’ll remember every November that will follow, that not only do our rights come from the Constitution, but our duty to defend those rights is also enshrined in the Constitution. November 2nd isn’t about controlling the reigns of power; it’s about reigning in the power in the branches of government.

You do not fight alone. We will not fight alone. Engraved on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia are words from an ancient
text, and it’s where the Liberty Bell gets her name. Those words read: ‘Proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof.’ In the same book it says: ‘Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.’ Translation…. When we proclaim Liberty, when we do freedom’s work, we make His (God’s) work on this Earth our very own. So you see, we will not fight alone. When we stand up for liberty, we are standing up God and for the Constitution.

The time has come to take our stand. We must fight for what has always been the source of America’s greatness – a patron God and our freedom.

We will win back Congress in 2010 and we will win back our country in 2012.

We will Remember in November ! Let’s give them a November they will never forget !”

Andrew Breitbart, founder of Breitbart.com, the blogsite that broke the ACORN scandal, then took the stage and talked about how we are sick and tired of the mainstream media calling us names and diminishing our role. He reminded the Tea Party members and the other grassroots organizations of the power they hold: “We’re sick and tired of them…. As their profits go down because we’re saying ‘No’ to the free subscriptions, and as we’re turning to other channels and going on the internet where there is a free and open debate, something very strange is happening…. YOU became the media. You took their jobs because they wouldn’t do their jobs right. How do I know that? Because my media empire is YOU. You’re the ones who report and write for me. You’re doing the job they refuse to do. I’m not the one with a private jet or a house out on Montauk, Long Island. I’ve got two car payments and a mortgage I can’t afford. I want to save the country just like you do. That is what we do. That is why we do what we do. We are citizens who love our country and we’re going to take it back.”

Towards the very end of the rally, Ken Cuccinelli stepped up and faced a roaring crowd. In the eyes of those who respect States’ rights, Cuccinelli is quite a hero. While other states’ attorney generals cowered to the challenge, he picked up his stick. His message was specifically about the healthcare bill, what it will do to individual liberty and the delicate balance of power between the government and the states, and his state’s lawsuit over the government’s attempt at nationalizing healthcare.

Cuccinelli said: “If the federal government can order you to buy Nancy-approved health insurance, they can order you to buy anything. And then not only have we eliminated a government of enumerated powers, we no longer have the compound republic we call Federalism. States no longer matter and that is one of the goals of this Congress and this administration. And in Virginia, where it all began, we’re going to fight it until it ends.

When I took my oath of office, I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to protect it, including from our own federal government. And that’s what we’re doing in this lawsuit.

You know, in 1774, at the First Continental Congress, they all signed on to a document that said that they ‘cheerfully acknowledged’ Parliament’s right to regulate their commerce, and in that same document, they all committed to boycotting British goods. Well, across the Atlantic Ocean, King George wasn’t too happy. And the Parliament wasn’t real happy either. And they called in their lawyers and those lawyers told the King that the Colonists were obviously well-advised legally because while they had come up to the line, they managed to stay within the law. And while Parliament wanted to punish the Colonists for their boycotts, it acknowledged that it couldn’t legally compel them to buy British products. King George III and the Parliament of Great Britain, the ones this nation rebelled against, respected the liberty of the Colonists of America. How sad of a statement is it that a nation that once wanted to dominate and subjugate us respected our states’ rights more than our own Congress and President does now.

I hope in another year and a half or so, I’ll come back here to a building only two blocks away to restore the balance of power between the States and the federal government and to kill the Healthcare Reform bill. And in doing so, we will fulfill the role of the States as foreseen by our Founding Fathers.

Your state’s Attorney General is your last line of defense in protecting the Constitution against the federal government. True, it may be the last line of defense but I’ve got news for you, it’s not a quiet one, we’re not asleep on our watch, and we’re going to fight until we’ve got our Constitution back and we’ve knocked the federal government back inside the boundaries of that sacred document.

Now this isn’t the only fight we have with the government at this time (reference to their immigration lawsuit), but it’s the one I’ll talk to you today. I’d rather not be fighting with my own country’s government, and I’d never thought I’d see the day I did so, but I recognize my role as Attorney General. I will uphold the oath I swore, and we will fight our own government, through the courts and even in the ballot boxes in November 2nd, for as long as it takes and as long as we have to, in order to restore the Founder’s vision and to apply it now in the 21st century.

God Bless you all and God Bless America.”

It is already mid-September. In only a month and a half, Americans will exercise one of the greatest rights they possess as an American.… the right to have their voice heard by their government. Who will they choose to speak for them? Will it be someone who truly has the heart and soul to speak honestly and faithfully for them? Will it be someone who fundamentally loves and respects this country as they do? Will it be someone who understands on the ground level how horribly off-track this country has gotten and how disdainful the government has become of We the People? Will it be someone who believes that the decay and corruption in government has to stop? Will it be someone who understands and respects our founding documents? Will it be someone who understands that We the People have our greatest exercise of freedom when government remains small?

We have arrived at a precipice. Will we go ahead and jump headfirst into the abyss of endless government growth and spending? Will we jump headfirst into a dark unknown from which we might never again see the light of day as a free and robust and resilient people? Or will we safely retreat backwards and return to the shelter and comfort of our Founders and their Constitution?

Times are tough today and many may be tempted to turn to the government for all its needs and wants. But remember, times will swing back and there will be prosperity once again. And you won’t be able to ask for your personal freedom back. You won’t need to be personally responsible because no one else will be. The government will become even more irresponsible than the people. It’s already headed in that direction. There will be so many laws that everyone will unintentionally break one law or another. And then when you do, the government can take whatever rights you had remaining. There will be so many laws that no one will understand them and it will be anarchy. You go to the zoo and feel sorry for the caged lion or the caged tiger. Their wild spirits have been broken. They wait for the attendant. They wait for their meals. That will be every American citizen if the government continues on its present course. You may think you need the government to take care of you, but how will you explain it to your grandchildren one day when they want to enjoy all their God-given freedoms and live the true American dream but can’t. How will you feel when one day your grandchildren have the mind and the drive to be successful but the government tells them that they can only enjoy their success after everyone else in the country first is able to live as good as them and enjoy the same things that they do. It’s sad to see a wounded youthful spirit. Once you ask the government to be your personal benefactor, you sign away your rights and you can’t get them back. Once you sell your soul to the proverbial Devil, you can’t get it back. History and destiny will continue to march forward.

Alexis de Tocqueville once proclaimed to all the world that the reason America was able to be so successful so quickly was because of the enormous value it placed on individual liberty. While the nations of Europe placed a much greater value on equality (equal things, equal positions) than they did on Liberty, and suffered greatly for it, America placed its value in human liberty. Americans cherished their liberty. As he wrote in his book Democracy in America: “I contend that in order to combat the evils which equality may produce, there is only one effectual remedy – namely, freedom.”

Freedom is always the right answer. Freedom is always worth fighting for.

REFERENCES:
http://www.thehotjoints.com/2010/09/13/video-tito-the-builder-munoz-delivers-fiery-speech-at-912-rally/ (Tito Munoz’s speech)

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/09/12/912-rally-one-political#ixzz0zRXjdEfa

http://www.breitbart.tv/live-stream-912-protest-washington-dc/ (Andrew Breitbart)

http://governmentmess.blogspot.com/2010/09/9-12-10-dc-rally-mike-pence-fires-up.html (Rep. Mike Pence)

http://projectvirginia.com/video-of-cuccinelli-at-the-912-rally/ (Cuccinelli’s speech)

http://www.thecontract.org/support/ (Contract from America)

http://www.the912project.com/the-912-2/ (9/12 Project)

Note: How did Andrew Breitbart break the ACORN scandal? Well, he originally went to the mainstream media with the report of ACORN corruption, but no one was interested. He was told it wasn’t newsworthy. Apparently the fact that ACORN, one of Obama’s most powerful political support groups, having ties to corruption was nothing the American people should know about. So he broke the corruption by airing the video “hooker” scandal which then forced the media, against its will, to break the corruption story.

CONTRACT FROM AMERICA
We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

Individual Liberty
Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.

Limited Government
The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders. When our government ventures beyond these functions and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.

Economic Freedom
The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty. Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people.

1. Protect the Constitution
Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

2. Reject Cap & Trade
Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)

3. Demand a Balanced Budget
Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)

6. End Runaway Government SpendingImpose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)

9. Stop the Pork
Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

10. Stop the Tax Hikes
Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)

THE 9/12 PROJECT: The 9 Principles and 12 Values

The 9 Principles are —
1. America Is Good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
God “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
Honesty “I hope that I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider to be the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” George Washington

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
Marriage/Family “It is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known. By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.” Thomas Jefferson

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
Justice “I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness “Everyone has a natural right to choose that vocation in life which he thinks most likely to give him comfortable subsistence.” Thomas Jefferson

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
Charity “It is not everyone who asketh that deserveth charity; all however, are worth of the inquiry or the deserving may suffer.” George Washington

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
On your right to disagree “In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” George Washington

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
Who works for whom? “I consider the people who constitute a society or a nation as the source of all authority in that nation.” Thomas Jefferson

The 12 Values are –
* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Gratitude

By Diane Rufino

Glenn Beck had a dream. He thought that if Americans can unite in order to restore honor to our nation, it would be the first step in taking our country back and taking it back for all the right reasons. It was perhaps fitting then that he held his “Restoring Honor” rally on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s 1963 March on Washington, when the civil rights leader talked about his own dream to bring honor to our nation.

The “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, Aug. 28, attracted at least a million Americans who, while searching for answers to the many dire problems plaguing the nation, wanted to show solidarity behind Glenn Beck’s dream. For months Beck reported that the event would not be political but would be spiritual and reflective. It would be an occasion to celebrate our military and to reflect upon the honorable values that at one time defined our nation. Perhaps most of all it would be an opportunity to honor God, who has been out of the equation for far too long. We cannot continue to ask His blessings when as a nation we are told we must deny him. Good things happen to us when God is on our side and blesses us with his Providence. And the best way to get our house in order is to start with the individual. As Beck said: “The message I was trying to send was to be your highest self and stand in the burning bush (reference to the God), stand in the fire, because that’s the only thing that’s going to save us. I’ve come to the place where I believe there’s no way to solve these problems, these issues … unless we solve it through God, unless we solve it through being our highest self, and that’s a pretty tall order.”

It was a beautiful day for the rally. Not only was it hot and sunny, but the air was filled with an energy that most people admit they had never felt before in their lives. My family and I spent the week-end in the DC, only blocks from the mall where the rally was to take place. We wanted to use the occasion to learn and to re-acquaint ourselves with history. From the minute we checked into the hotel, clerks and local folks were awestruck at the attendance in the city. They had never seen the city so packed and so busy. There wasn’t a single hotel room available in the city and not a single parking space. On every street were hundreds of people taking in the sights or getting something to eat, all in preparation of the big event on Saturday. People had come in from everywhere imaginable… Iowa, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Georgia, New Jersey, and others like ourselves, from North Carolina. These are just a few that we rode in the elevators with.

On Saturday morning we got up at 6:30 am and looked out the window of our hotel room. We could already see crowds walking past the hotel and towards the area of the mall. We knew then we would have to get moving ourselves. Quickly we showered and had a quick bite to eat, and were out of the hotel by 8:00. We walked to the mall with a huge mass of people. There was barely any room to move around on the sidewalks. Once we hit the mall, there was even less room to walk around, and all you could do was move with the crowds.
By 8:30, the mall area was already packed from the Lincoln Memorial straight back through the WWII Memorial and onto the lawn to the Washington Monument. It was a sea of people, all packed together. We were unable to get any closer than right in front of the WWII Memorial, but at least the kids had the chance to sit by the water and fountains to cool off. Talking to people who live in DC, they said without a doubt that they had never seen the city so crowded. “We’ve never seen anything like this in DC, even for the 9/12 March.” One man estimated the crowd (at 8:30am) to be at least 1.3 million. A couple who had attended the 9/12 March last year estimated the present crowd at at double the 9/12 event. A man who attended the Million Man March said there was absolutely no comparison between the two events. He said the Million Man March was a minor event compared to the Restoring Honor Rally. All in all, the estimate that I got from talking to so many people was that there was at least 1.2 – 1.5 million people in attendance.

The crowd was wonderful… just the greatest group of people you would want to spend the afternoon with…..the greatest group of people you would want to call your neighbors, and the greatest group of people you could want to share a country with. These people are undyingly patriotic, warm, generous, gregarious, respectful, caring, focused on the right values, and for the most part, religious. They all know that they can no longer sit by and watch the destructive forces that have gained power continue to “transform” the nation into something they can no longer be proud of. And pride in their country was the very reason these average Americans traveled from their homes to share in the event with Glenn Beck. . Just before the event was set to begin, a flock of seagulls flew straight in over the Reflecting Pool, in perfect V-formation. The crowd around the Pool clapped heartily. One man next commented: “It’s God’s version of a fly-over!”

Glenn Beck took the stage, in a shirt and tie and headset, at precisely 10:00 and opened with a public service announcement: “I have just gotten word from the media that there is over 1000 people here today.” The crowds, numbering over a million at that point, laughed and cheered wildly.

Beck asked the crowd to take notice of where they were standing, for all around them were monuments to those who have served this nation immeasurably, either in word or in deed. In one direction was the majestic George Washington Monument on which is engraved the words “Laus Deo” which means “Praise Be to God.” George Washington – “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen” – devoted his entire life in service to his country. He was pulled out of retirement on three separate occasions because his country had further need of his leadership, one at the Constitutional Convention and another in service as our nation’s first President.

To the side was the Jefferson Memorial, a beautiful monument to our liberty, for it was Thomas Jefferson who gave us religious freedom and who pushed James Madison to include a Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Inscribed on one wall are his words: “”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? And 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 the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?”

In front was the stunning WWII Memorial, which celebrated the 65th Anniversary of the end of the war against Japan on August 15th. There were veterans on hand to patrol the Memorial and some seemed awfully nervous that somehow it might be disrespected. They were reassured however when rally members went up to them and thanked them for what they did for the country. Immediately off to the side and in front was the poignant Vietnam War Memorial to which Beck exclaimed: “When they came home, they weren’t given a warm welcome home. But today, we celebrate their service.” In back of that was the KoreanWar Memorial.

And then there was the Lincoln Memorial itself, from which the rally would be broadcast…. As Beck described: “Abraham Lincoln rests on a seat of dignity, a throne of authority.. The face of equality… solemn, dignified, resolved.” On one wall is engraved his Gettysburg Address and on another is engraved his second inaugural address. “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Beck kicked off the rally by telling the crowd: “Something beyond imagination is happening. Something that is beyond man is happening. America today begins to turn back to God. For too long, this country has wandered in darkness and we have wandered in darkness for periods from the beginning. We have had moments of brilliance and moments of darkness. But his country has spent far too long worried about scars and thinking about the scars and concentrating on the scars. Today we are going to concentrate on the good things in America, on the good things what we can accomplish together and what we can do tomorrow. For the story of America is the story of human kind.” Glenn then discussed the power of God. On the other side of the world, God fulfilled the scripture and delivered his chosen people out of bondage. He sent the deliverer. People then began to listen to God and take his word seriously. And then he fulfilled scripture again and sent his son Jesus Christ, this time to deliver those who believe from the condemnation of sin. On this side of the world, God also delivered his people from oppression and guided them to freedom. And they also listened to him. They secured charters from England and got in their boats and came to America. Their story is our story.

Glenn said: On this side of the world, “God’s chosen people are the Native Americans and the pilgrims.” And with that he introduced a man and a woman who are direct descendants of the native American tribe that welcomed the settlers when they landed on their shores and he introduced Pastor Paul Jehle, a direct descendant from those pilgrims who arrived here on the Mayflower. Pastor Jehle then delivered a beautiful prayer. He reminded the audience the role that God has played in our history…. It was God who opened the shores of America. It was God to brought the settlers to the new world. It was God whom the Pilgrims knelt to. It was God whom John Winthrop addressed when he delivered a sermon to inspire his settlers on their perilous ocean voyage to Massachusetts Bay. It was God who inspired our founding documents. It was God who was addressed in the Declaration of Independence as the “Creator.” It was God who guided us to our separation from England. And it was God who inspired our nation to secure for its people the largest grant of freedom in the world. It was also God who punished us when we broke our treaties with the native American friends and when we refused to treat all men with equality. And he may well punish us further for not modeling marriage after his laws. But God is a forgiving Lord. Pastor Jehle said that we, as a nation, need to ask God for forgiveness, for redemption, for reconciliation…. “He will honor those who honor him.” “God is the answer. He always has been.”

John Winthrop, on a charter to the New World to start a colony to embrace their Puritan religious beliefs, delivered a sermon to inspire them. (They would form the Massachusetts Bay Colony): “We must Consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with our god in this work we have undertaken and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world.” (These words went on to inspire speeches by both JFK and Ronald Reagan).

Beck urged the crowd: “Go to your churches, synagogues, and mosques… Yesterday is gone, tomorrow may never come, but we have today to make a difference!” The crowd applauded.

Next, Deborah Argel-Bastian, mother of a fallen Special Ops soldier, delivered a heartfelt and tearful remembrance to her son, Captain Derek Argel, who was killed in Action in Iraq. She spoke about the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, which Glenn Beck has personally endorsed, and which honors brave soldiers like her son. Deborah has raised several thousand for the cause, and in just the few short hours of the rally, over $5 million was raised for the cause. The Special Operations soldier is indeed a rare breed of human: expertly skilled, highly trained and wholly dedicated. Their challenges are particularly dangerous and unpredictable, but it is soldiers like Captain Argel who rescue hostages and take out high-risk targets.

Beck then introduced the speaker who received the loudest welcome from the crowds – Sarah Palin. She was asked to speak not as a politician and not as a powerful force for the Tea Party movement, but rather as the mother of a soldier. She started with these words: “We stand today at the symbolic crossroads of our nation’s history. May this day be the changing point.” She told the crowds: “We must not fundamentally transform America as some would want. We must restore America and restore her honor!”

Her message was that of the extraordinary character and dedication of the American soldier. To that point, she told the remarkable stories of three brave servicemen who joined her onstage – U.S. Navy SEAL Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell, US Marine Sergeant James “Eddie” Wright, and Air Force Colonel Tom Kirk.

“The first is a man named Marcus Luttrell. His story is one of raw courage in the face of overwhelming odds. It’s also a story of America’s enduring quest for justice. Remember, we went to Afghanistan seeking justice for those who were killed without mercy by evil men on September 11th. And one fateful day in Afghanistan on a mountain ridge, Marcus and three of his fellow Navy SEALs confronted the issue of justice and mercy in a decision that would forever change their lives.

They were on a mission to hunt down a high-level Taliban leader, but they were faced with a terrible dilemma when some men herding goats stumbled upon their position, and they couldn’t tell if these men were friend or foe. So the question was what to do with them? Should they kill them or should they let them go and perhaps risk compromising their mission? They took a vote. They chose mercy over self-preservation. They set their prisoners free. The vote said it was the humane thing to do. It was the American thing to do. But it sealed their fate because within hours, over a hundred Taliban forces arrived on the scene. They battled the four Navy SEALs throughout the surrounding hills. A rescue helicopter came, but it was shot down. By the time the sun set on June 28, 2005, it was one of the bloodiest days for American forces in Afghanistan. Nineteen brave, honorable men were lost that day. Marcus was the sole survivor. Alone, stranded, badly wounded, he limped and crawled for miles along that mountain side. What happened next is a testament to the words: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.” Marcus and his team showed mercy in letting their prisoners free. And later he was shown mercy by Afghan villagers who honored an ancient custom of providing hospitality to any stranger who would ask for it. They took him in. They cared for him, refused to hand him over to the Taliban. They got him back safely to our forces.

Marcus’ story teaches us that even on the worst battlefield against the most brutal enemy, we adhere to our principles. This American love of justice and mercy is what makes us a force for good in this world. Marcus is a testament to that…. (With that last remark, she asked the crowd to join her in honoring Mr. Luttrell. She gave him a big huge as he stepped forward and thanked the crowd).

From the time he first heard men marching to a cadence call, Eddie Wright had one dream in life, and that was to be a United States Marine. And as a Marine serving in Iraq, his company was ambushed in Fallujah. He was knocked out when a rocket propelled grenade hit his humvee. When he came to, he saw that both his hands were gone and his leg was badly wounded. He couldn’t fire his weapon, he could barely move, and he was bleeding to death. But he had the strength of mind to lead the men under his command, and that is exactly what he did. He kept them calm, he showed them how to stop the bleeding in his leg, he told them where to return fire, he had them call for support, and he got them out of there alive.

His composure under fire that day earned him the Bronze Star with Valor device….. (She then asked the crowd to join her in honoring Mr. Wright, whom she gave a great hug. He waved to the crowd with his metal prosthetic hands).

Tom Kirk was an Air Force squadron commander and a combat pilot who had flown over 150 missions in Korea and Vietnam. One day on a routine mission over Hanoi, his plane was shot down. He spent the next five and a half years in that living hell known as the Hanoi Hilton. Like his fellow prisoners, Tom endured the beatings, the torture, the hunger, the years of isolation. He described it, saying, ‘There was nothing to do, nothing to read, nothing to write. You had to just sit there in absolute boredom, loneliness, frustration, and fear. You had to live one day at a time, because you had no idea how long you were going to be there.’

After two years of solitary confinement, pacing back and forth in his cell — three and a half steps across, three and a half steps deep – Tom was finally moved to a larger holding cell with 45 other Americans prisoners, among them was a man named John McCain. In circumstances that defy description, this band of brothers kept each other alive, and one by one, they came home.

Tom was released on March 14, 1973. You might think that a man who had suffered so much for his country would be bitter and broken by it. But Tom’s heart was only filled with love – love for America – that special love of country that we call patriotism.

Tom wrote, ‘Patriotism has become, for many, a ‘corny’ thing. For me, it is more important now than at any time in my life. How wonderful it is to be an American. How wonderful it is to be an American who can come home!’ (The crowd joined her in honoring Mr. Kirk)

Their stories are America’s story. We will always come through. We will never give up, and we shall endure because we live by that moral strength that we call grace. Because though we’ve often skirted a precipice, a providential hand has always guided us to a better future.”

Sarah Palin ended by re-enforcing her initial message: “I know that many of us today, we are worried about what we face. Sometimes our challenges, they just seem insurmountable. But, here, together, at the crossroads of our history, may this day be the changing point! Look around you. You’re not alone. You are Americans! You have the same steel spine and the moral courage of Washington and Lincoln and Martin Luther King. It is in you. It will sustain you as it sustained them….. So with pride in the red, white, and blue; with gratitude to our men and women in uniform; let’s stand together! Let’s stand with honor! Let’s restore America!”

I had been standing just outside the WWII Memorial at the time of Sarah Palin’s speech and a man standing next to me, from Minnesota I believe, said: “I wish there were more opportunities to honor our troops and military like this event.” And he was absolutely right.

Three people were then singled out for the values of Faith, Hope and Charity. The Faith Merit medal was presented to the Reverend C.L. Jackson, a lifelong pastor and civil rights pioneer. The Hope Merit medal was presented to baseball superstar Albert Pujols, of the St. Louis Cardinals, who has remained true to his wife, himself, the sport, and to his faith. In fact when he received the medal, he thanked his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for all he has been blessed with. The Charity merit medal was presented to philanthropist Jon Huntsman Sr., who has given billions of dollars to charities, including those for cancer research, domestic violence shelters, and homeless shelters.

Alveda King, niece of the late civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., a minister, a conservative political activist, an anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion activist, author, politician, and mother of eight, spoke about rebuilding and uniting America. “We are here to honor special men and women who, like my Uncle Martin, are blessed with servants’ hearts. Though they gave their service in ways very different from Martin Luther King Jr., like him they are not afraid of giving their lives for the freedom of others. If Uncle Martin were here today, he would surely commend us for giving credit where credit is due…. We are united by one race, the human race. We are all children of God and we must love one another. We are one human family. We must not oppress each other but help those who are oppressed.” She also asked rally-goers to “focus not on elections or on political causes, but on honor, on character … not the color of our skin.”

“Forty-seven years ago, Uncle Martin compared our nation’s promise of Equal Protection to a check marked “Insufficient Funds.” Today, in more than one sense, American is nearly bankrupt. Our material gains seem to be going the way of our moral losses. We are still suffering from the great Evil Divide of racism. Our children are still suffering in the education system and our sons and daughters are being incarcerated at astronomical rates. The sickness, disease, and poverty of the spirit and soul are plaguing our communities. The procreative foundation of marriage is being threatened, and the wombs of our mothers have become places where the blood of our children is shed in a womb war that threatens the fabric of our society. The economy reflects the girth of our moral poverty. Yet we are not without hope and faith. Hope, faith, and love are not dead in America. Hallelujah. We still trust in God. Our honored heroes here today bear witness that there is still hope in the human heart….” She asked the crowds: “When will we know when the check that Uncle Martin spoke about is good? We will know when we have arrived when prayer is once again welcomed in the public squares of America and in our schools. We will know when our children are no longer in peril in our streets and in our classrooms and in the wombs of our mothers.”

Echoing the words of her Uncle, she ended with these words: “I too have a dream. I have a dream that one day that the God of love will transcend color and economic status and cause us to turn from moral turpitude. I have a dream that Americans will repent from the sin of racism and return to Honor. I have a dream that America will pray and God will forgive us our sins and revive us in our land.”

When Ms. King concluded, the crowd was treated to some gospel songs touching on faith and unity. Red-headed country singer Jo Dee Messina also took the stage to perform her beautiful song “Heaven was Needing a Hero.” No better song could have been sung on such an occasion.

The closing prayer was delivered by Vietnam veteran Dan Roever, a man of honor who survived having a phosphorus grenade blown up in his face. His burns were so severe that he literally lost his entire face and one eye. He tried to commit suicide before he ever got home because he didn’t think his young wife could bear to look at him. He began with these words: “There are two reflecting pools here. One is the Reflecting Pool, of water, in front of the Lincoln Memorial. The other is the pool of people gathered here in your name. We reflect upon you. We are your reflecting pool.” In his prayer, he reminded us of Romans 8:28. He reminded us that this verse assures us that in all things – slavery, civil war, segregation, war, terror, and even the Holocaust – God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Beck closed the event with words that were sure to instill hope in every attendee at the rally. He said that Americans have a choice between allowing the scars of the past to crush or to learn from the mistakes and move forward. He pointed to the nearby monuments as examples of Americans who have given their lives to the service of the country, singling out Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King.

“So what did these great people give their lives for?” he asked. “They gave it for the American experiment. And that’s what this is — an experiment. It’s not just a country, it’s an idea. It’s an idea that man can rule himself. And that’s the American experiment.”
At that point Beck began to become visibly choked up while describing visiting the Lincoln Memorial with his children. He also quoted the Gettysburg Address at length and said he has been staying in the same hotel where Dr. King completed his “I Have a Dream” speech and where the “Battle Hymn of Republic” was composed.

In talking about Martin Luther King, he noted that his monument hasn’t been completed and he hasn’t been carved in marble yet. “He’s still a man,” Beck said. With that he noted that the only difference between the great leaders memorialized nearby and individuals in the crowd was their determination to do the right thing, regardless of difficulty. “Have trust in the Lord, and recognize that Moses and Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were men, they were just like you. They just picked up their stick,” he said. “Do not stand and look to someone else. Look to yourself. Pick up your stick and stand.”

Beck said too many Americans have been looking to someone else for help with their problems, when instead they should be looking inside of themselves and then extending a hand to the needy around them. “We are a nation quite honestly that in about as good a shape as I am. Because we’ve had a soft life,” he said. “The poorest among us are still some of the richest in the world. The poorest among us have blessings beyond wildest imagination of anyone that Mother Theresa visited. And yet we don’t recognize it.”

Instead of recognizing our blessings, he said Americans have allowed themselves to become easily knocked down and disillusioned. They have grown tired, weak, and increasingly divided. Beck told the crowd: “There is growing hatred in the country. We must be better than what we’ve allowed ourselves to become. We must get the poison of hatred out of us. No matter what anyone may say or do, no matter what anyone smears or lies or throws our way or to any American’s way, we must look to God and look to love. We must defend those that we disagree with, as long as they are honest and have integrity.”

In order to succeed, Beck explained, Americans must first look within themselves and make sure that they are honest, faithful and charitable in their everyday lives. He emphasized the importance of honesty and faith by relating his own journey, which took him to a low place where he hit rock bottom, had no friends, and disgraced himself in every possible way before finding God and turning his life around.

“America is great because America is good. But that isn’t the entire story. America is only what we choose her to be. We as individuals must be good so America can be great,” he said. And that was the take-home message of the day. We need to be the best that we all can be… for ourselves, for our families, for our God, and for our country. We need to restore faith, hope, charity and honor in our own lives first and then through our character, we can restore honor to our country. That’s how we take the country back.

He closed, “We are at a crossroads, today. We must decide who we are. And what is it we believe. Will we advance our Republic or allow it to perish? I choose advance!” (To which the crowd cheered !!) With that, the historic rally was concluded.

The rally was over just before 2:00. It went precisely as scheduled. I walked back towards my hotel with my sweaty, smelly, tired family but felt more alive than I have in a long time. I imagine thousands felt the same exact way. As one attendee commented to me afterwards, as we both sat down to rest our throbbing feet: “The crowd was extraordinarily courteous and polite. I saw people go out of their way to help people navigate through the crowds, even when it meant that they were uprooted from their chairs or were being stepped on. I saw people helping others to get something cold to drink. I didn’t see any signs except on the way to the gathering. Once I actually got to the mall ground, I only saw American flags and some yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, which people were proud to carry. There were plenty of conservative t-shirts and I enjoyed reading their messages. Some were really clever and unique, but not a single one was offensive or tasteless. The speeches were exactly what I expected. They weren’t about politics, as Beck said, and instead they were about things like honor, courage, patriotism, love of God, unity, and charity. Beck and Palin and the other speakers were calling for the need of a national revival of these virtues. And as I looked around, I could see that everyone in the crowd agreed. I even saw grown men crying when they talked about honor and God. When I left the grounds and I looked back, I saw the grass completely free of litter and debris. It was truly a respectful crowd.”

On a site just off the mall, another rally was being held – the “Reclaim the Dream” rally – which was organized by the Reverend Al Sharpton. The rally was promoted by Mr. Sharpton as a peaceful, non-political rally to share the message that while blacks still have “the dream” – “We aren’t there yet.” In fact, that message – “We aren’t there yet” – was going to be the theme. As it turned out, it wasn’t necessarily “non-political” nor “peaceful,” although there were no acts of assault or violence. Rather, there were plenty of insults and finger-pointing and a lot of disrespect. (At least, that is what several attendees of the Restoring Honor rally were talking about at the hotel, at the Museums we attended, and even when we stopped for ice cream and dinner. There was no where you could go that day without running into someone who had gone to the rally and wanted to share their experience).

A group of over a million Americans, almost exclusively white, from all corners of the country, and devoted solely and entirely to the positive, truthful message about restoring not only honor but hope, faith and charity in our nation, was criticized and attacked by the group, which was predominately black. They carried signs and called Glenn Beck “racist” and claimed that his rally would amount to nothing. “They are having a anti-government march on a day where King came to appeal to the government,” Sharpton said. “You can’t have it both ways… In ’63, they went to Washington for a strong national government to protect civil rights. Beck and Palin are going there for a weak national government and to advocate state rights.” I personally didn’t see much criticism from members of this rally except for a group of people just on the edge of the Restoring Honor Rally who shouted “Beck is a racist” and “the Tea Party is racist” as we walked by. When my husband asked why they didn’t have a flag, they answered that they didn’t need one. Other attendees said they were called “Tea baggers” as they left the mall area and others said that Sharpton’s crowd used foul language in regard to Beck and the rally. In the paper the following day, the “Reclaim the Dream” attendees complained that they received some foul comments as well. One told them to “go back to church.”

While the Restoring Honor rally was respectful and non-political, many of those who attended Al Sharpton’s rally specifically did so to protest Beck’s rally. The truth is that the two rallies could not have been any more different, though both inspired by the words and acts of civil service and sacrifice by Martin Luther King Jr. The contrast between the rallies couldn’t have been sharper — One was divinely-spirited and the other was mean-spirited. One had a positive message and the other had a negative message. One represented unity and was inclusive of all persons who wanted to praise the Lord and the military, and the other was exclusive. One recognized the Lincoln Memorial as a site for all Americans and as a symbol of national unity and brotherhood and the other used angry tones to claim that the site belongs exclusively to MLK and his cause. One was about putting the needs of the nation and its integrity and longevity first and the other was about putting their needs first. Lastly, one was about race and the other was not.

Sharpton opened the “Reclaim the Dream” rally with these words: “They may have the mall, but we have the message. They may have the platform, but we have the dream. They want to disgrace this day, and we’re not giving them this day. This is our day and we ain’t giving it away.” Of course, it was the same tired negative victimization message… “We are still not there yet. We are still doubly unemployed.. We still haven’t arrived in education. We still don’t have a job to go home to. It’s been 47 years and we will still leave here in the same position we were back then.” He focused mainly on the job disparity and how it is the government’s job to fix it. The tone was that somehow, even in 2010, whites are responsible for making sure that blacks are not treated with equality. Perhaps Sharpton could have brought up the facts and figures to show that African-Americans are overwhelmingly and disproportionately dropping out of school. Perhaps he could have brought up statistics about family and about crime. (See my reference section). To attack white Americans for their massive display of patriotism, for their “nerve” in invoking Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, and for their solidarity in respecting the values that make/made America great showed a fundamental lack of good faith on their part to the words of their fallen leader. The hypocrisy was astounding. They revere a man who asked them to abstain from violence and show civility in pursuing their cause and who preached about “character” and unity, and yet they vehemently denounced the message of God and restoring honor. Our nation is indeed “at a crossroads” as Beck said, and we are on a destructive path with potentially disastrous consequences. If ever we needed a time for unity, it is now. It is a time to put country first. Yes, our rights and liberties are important, but what will we have if our country isn’t strong enough to protect them? This is a concern that wasn’t or isn’t on the minds of Al Sharpton and his rally-goers. In fact, he sent a message to the Tea Party movement when he told his followers: “We know how to sucker punch you. We did it in 2008 and we’ll do it again.”

Others who spoke at the “Reclaim the Dream” rally had similar messages. Jaime Contreras, president of SEIU-32BJ told the crowd: “They sure as hell don’t represent me. They represent hate-mongering and angry white people. The happy white people are here today. We will not let them stand in the way of the change we voted for!” Joyce White commented: “If we hadn’t elected a black president, do you think they would be doing this today?”

Washington Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton said: “Beck’s message doesn’t change nothing. (again with the proper English) Beck has march-envy, and he doesn’t have a message to match our march. His message isn’t worthy of the place.” [Wow. I don’t even want to go there. For a US delegate to show such blatant disregard to our history is an indictment of the lack of ethics and character that we have in government].

Rev. W. Franklin Richardson, president of Grace Baptist Church in Mount Vernon, N.Y. said: “It’s all right with me that they are at the Mall today because we are at the White House.” Tehuti Imhotep, who traveled from Baltimore, shouted at passersby: “King was about bringing people together. Beck is pulling people apart.”

The sad thing is that Sharpton and his followers had the chance to embrace Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of racial harmony by attending the Restoring Honor Rally and standing alongside white patriots to pay tribute to our military, to embrace God, and to respect the dreams of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King. White rally-goers would have welcomed blacks with open arms. But Sharpton is not honestly in the business of racial harmony. He is a propagation pimp. His role is to keep playing the race card and to drum in the message of victimization. His role is to maintain the racial divide. It is good for business.

The problem is that Al Sharpton is still talking about the bad old days for Blacks and rather than see beyond race-colored glasses, views Glenn Beck’s call to “Restore Honor” as one to restore the “good old days” for Whites. When the nation can’t progress because of such a myoptic view, we have a problem. Blacks will likely never stand arm-in-arm with whites, as Dr. King urged, to move the country forward because they fundamentally want different things, and the way things look to many, longevity of the country is not one of them.

As I was ready to finish this account of Beck’s historical rally, I just happened to turn on the TV and listen to the vile words of a talk show host who has long lost his relevancy. Chris Matthews. In talking about Glenn Beck and the rally, this is what he said: “This is the man who comes to Lincoln`s feet to claim the mantle of Martin Luther King? Can we imagine if King were physically here tomorrow, today, were he to reappear tomorrow on the very steps of the Lincoln Memorial? …. I have a nightmare that one day a right wing talk show host will come to this spot, his people`s lips dripping with the words “interposition” and “nullification.” Little right wing boys and little right wing girls joining hands and singing their praise for Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin… I have a nightmare.”

The forces for oppression are strong in this country, which is amazing considering the leaders history has given us to inspire us and upon whose shoulders we can stand to achieve even greater things. This time, the oppression isn’t against one class of people, it is against all Americans. For anyone who doesn’t see how their fundamental liberties have already been burdened, just take note of how many months in the year you have to work just to pay Uncle Sam and how much time that takes you away from your families. Take note of how your freedom to move about and enjoy your property is burdened by crime. Take note of how judiciously the government scrutinizes your assets and decides what no longer belongs to you. Take note of how it believes it is entitled to take what it needs from you to use for whatever it feels (without giving you any say on how it will be applied, even if its goals are personally offensive to you). Take note of how the government is increasingly taking away your rights to worship and speak freely. Take note of how little control you have in the raising your own children, for the school (ie, the state) knows better. Take note of how the government will now mandate what you MUST purchase, even though you don’t need it. Government isn’t the solution. It’s the problem. As Plato once said: “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Who would you rather govern you? God, who created you in love and all the liberties you need and deserve to reach your full potential? Or the government, run by inferiors, who only know what is good for the country and for their careers and not what is best for you personally? The less government in your life allows for more God in your life.

On the topic of liberty and freedom, there is one indisputable truth that we need to keep in mind, and this revelation comes from a Frenchman named Alexis de Tocqueville. French philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville, came to America in the early 1800’s from France for the purpose of studying her prison system. What became of that visit was a very powerful book called “Democracy in America.” In that book he compares America to the failed regimes of Europe, and especially France. He asks the question ‘Why was democracy able to take hold so successfully in America while it failed in other countries.’

One answer, according to de Tocqueville is that the people in nations like France placed a much greater value on Equality (equal things, equal positions) than they did on Liberty. “I think that democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom: left to themselves, they will seek it, cherish it, and view any privation of it with regret.” While there is a natural taste for freedom, in France, however, the need for equality was greater. “But for equality, their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, invincible: they call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery. They will endure poverty, servitude, barbarism – but they will not endure aristocracy. This is true at all times, and especially true in our own. All men and all powers seeking to cope with this irresistible passion will be overthrown and destroyed by it. Despotism cannot reign without its support….. I contend that in order to combat the evils which equality may produce, there is only one effectual remedy – namely, political freedom.” In other words, as long as we share that spirited protectionism over our liberties that our early countrymen possessed, and as long as we value our liberties far more than a government that needs to care for us from cradle to grave, then we stand the chance of survival. Our liberties are already burdened and the trend in government is to redistribute wealth and position (equal things). It is already determining who “has too much” or who “has enough.” “Return to Honor” is exactly the message we need to heed right now. We need to return to the honorable values that founded this country and which sustained our greatest grant of liberty. We need to honor those values that allow each individual to reach their full potential so that our country reaches its full potential.

I hope August 28th is a turning point. I hope history will judge it as so. One man – Abraham Lincoln – made a difference. One man – Martin Luther King – made a difference. If individual men, inspired by God and motivated by the power of individual liberty, can make such a difference, imagine what we can do together.

I just hope that the energy, the spirit, and the message that brought us together on Aug. 28th and which unites us every day in our Tea Parties in our towns and cities will continue to grow and will help us grow as responsible citizens “so that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

REFERENCES:
http://www.thesarahpalinblog.com/2010/08/video-and-transcript-of-restoring-honor.html#ixzz0y6dtaNll (Transcript of Sarah Palin’s Speech)
http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/08/28/HP/A/37551/Restoring+Honor+Rally.aspx (Restoring Honor Rally footage, cspan)

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44980/ (Glenn Beck’s site)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxTtkWHkyUM&feature=email (The Pledge of Allegiance and National Anthem)

NOTE: While religion and honor were the overriding themes of the day, there can be no claims that the rally showed any religious intolerance for the name of Jesus was barely invoked during the rally. It was a sweeping acknowledgement of all religions.

Our Tragic Numbers and Their Human Toll–
by George Will, August 30, 2010 [Referenced at: http://peripateticphilosopher.blogspot.com/ ]

George Will opens his column by alerting the reader to the fact that 10,000 baby boomers become eligible for Social Security and Medicare every day while the unemployment hovers around 10 percent.

Will then focuses on one specific group in America, the African American, a group he claims has been below the radar during the Obama Administration. He quotes Nathan Glazer, a sociologist, writing in the “American Interest”:

(1) By the early 2000s, more than one-third of all young black non-college men were incarcerated;

(2) More than 60% of black high school dropouts born since the mid-1960s end in prison;

(3) For every 100 bachelor’s degrees conferred on black men, 200 were conferred on black women;

(4) Inner cities have become havens for the poor, the poorly educated, the unemployed and the unemployable;

(5) High out-of-wedlock birthrates exacerbate the social and economic problems of adolescent males without male parenting;

(6) This translates into disorderly neighborhoods and disorderly schools;

(7) Some young blacks harass those black males who take their education seriously (“hitting the books”), accusing them of abandoning their race and “acting white”;

(8) Only 35% of black children live with two parents;

(9) 24% of white eighth graders watch four or more hours of television a day whereas 59% of their black peers do (both groups also waste their time on some form of electronic contraption);

(10) By the age of 4, the average child in a professional family hears about 20 million more words than the average child in working-class family, and about 35 million more words than the average child in a welfare family with a mother who is most likely a high school dropout.

The disappointing fact, according to Paul E. Barton and Richard J. Coley, writing about the achievement gap, is that although the gap was closing between blacks and whites in the 1970s and 1980s, that progress has halted. They write, “Progress generally halted for those born around the mid-1960s, a time when landmark legislative victories heralded an end to racial discrimination.”

Barton and Coley conclude five factors have contributed to this loss of progress:

(1) The number of days black students are absent from school;

(2) The number of hours black students spend watching television;

(3) The number of pages read for homework;

(4) The quality and quantity of reading material;

(5) The presence of two parents in the home.

George Will admits public policy is not the answer. The answer is the same as that advocated by David Brooks. The strength of the culture and the resonance of the values of that culture with the concomitant demands on it produce the desired returns. In our rush into the future, we have left our soul behind, which is the idea of America.

Notes on the State of Black America —
By Nathan Glazer, July-August 2010, in The American Interest,
[ Referenced at: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=838 ]
The election of Barack Obama to the presidency in November 2008 marked a paradox in the long history of race in America that has not been much noticed: The installation of the first black President in American history—black, that is, as Americans define black, despite his white mother and his non-American, African father—coincided with the almost complete disappearance from American public life of discussion of the black condition and what public policy might do to improve it. There was a time not so long ago when we had trouble having a dispassionate, constructive discussion of these matters in public; now we seem unable to have any discussion at all.
Not one issue having to do with American blacks was on the explicit agenda of either major political party during the 2008 campaign, or on the agenda of the Obama Administration during the first year of his presidency. Neither the continuing crisis of black unemployment; nor the continuing crisis of public education for blacks in the inner cities; nor the crisis of black imprisonment; nor the related abandonment in most American cities of efforts to integrate black students in schools with substantial numbers of white and Asian classmates; nor the cyclical and structural “problems of the inner cities”, a euphemism for all of these problems and others suffered mainly by blacks—none of these issues has formed any significant part of public discussion now for years, including the years marking the political ascent of Barack Obama. As Harvard professor William Julius Wilson, perhaps the leading analyst of the black condition in our inner cities, has written in his important current book, More Than Just Race:
Through the second half of the 1990s and into the early years of the twenty-first century, public attention to the plight of poor black Americans seemed to wane. There was scant media attention to the problem of concentrated urban poverty neighborhoods in which a high percentage of the residents fall beneath the federally designated poverty line, little or no discussion of inner-city challenges by mainstream political leaders, and even an apparent quiescence on the part of ghetto residents themselves.1
How is this to be explained, and what does it mean? Certainly, as Wilson notes, the disappearance of these issues from major public discussion cannot be explained by the successful end of the race issue in American history. Progress there has been in the fifty years or more since a major Supreme Court decision signaled the end of the legal segregation of blacks into an inferior position, but even so, some aspects of the problem have grown worse. The juxtaposition is jarring, confusing, and evidently silencing.
** Glazer is a sociology professor emeritus at Harvard University.