When President Ronald Reagan called up the Soviet Premier to tear down the wall the divided free Berlin from enslaved Berlin, he spoke with the moral authority of one who understood the difference between right and wrong. He spoke as one who understood the difference between liberty an oppression. He also understood that one was better than the other in each case.
It could have been just the fanciful ranting of a semi senile old man… but, it wasn’t. He persisted in pursuing the evil empire until it became obvious that the central planning and control of the oppressive regime was no match for the creativity and industry of our free people. He knew that there was no substitute for victory. He knew that making nice with those who want to defeat you and wipe you from the history books only gives them time to regroup and plan for more dastardly attacks. He knew so much this current administration hasn’t even considered.
The fact that Michelle Obama’s appearance at the final NASCAR race of the season did not send a Chris Matthewsesque tingle up the legs of the assembled throng should come as no surprise to anyone who understands the American sport of big time stock car racing. The fans love their country. They are proud of their country. They are a self reliant breed. Most are firm defenders of the second amendment – the one that insures all the others. They also cling to their God, not the government when times get rough.
The reactions to this antipathy are more interesting. Both the first lady and her husband have made clear their disdain for patriotic, independent, Christian citizens like the ones who enjoy the sights and sounds of NASCAR. Mrs. Obama and Joe Biden’s wife had the audacity to show up at this event that decided the season championship. They surrounded a noble veteran who works to ease the transition of other returning veterans. Yet the race fans who paid $50, $100 or more to be there and watch their heroes battle each other on the one and a half mile Homestead Miami oval, did not take kindly to the intrusion of these two women that represent everything our country is not… at least did not used to be.
Given this oil and water mixture, the reaction could be predicted… and has been predicted. I, myself, called NASCAR, suggesting it was a mistake to have these beltway intruders take part in Sunday’s proceedings. The organization decided to honor the dishonorable and serve as a platform for the President’s re-election campaign. A campaign to destroy everything these fans hold dear.
A recent major investigative report by the Los Angeles Times sheds light on what all this “war on terror” is actually costing—and actually accomplishing. According to the report, “A decade after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, federal and state governments are spending about $75 billion a year on domestic security, setting up sophisticated radio networks, upgrading emergency medical response equipment, installing surveillance cameras and bombproof walls, and outfitting airport screeners to detect an ever-evolving list of mobile explosives.
“But how effective has that 10-year spending spree been?
“‘The number of people worldwide who are killed by Muslim-type terrorists, Al Qaeda wannabes, is maybe a few hundred outside of war zones. It’s basically the same number of people who die drowning in the bathtub each year,’ said John Mueller, an Ohio State University professor who has written extensively about the balance between threat and expenditures in fighting terrorism.”
[I received this from Congressman Randy Forbes (VA-4) and this information comes straight from the Armed Services Committee. It is a short piece but it summarizes where our military is today versus twenty years ago. This is important in view of the fact that the big government types are looking to chop even more from the defense budget to keep funds available for all the social and regulatory programs so dear to their heart.]
by Congressman Randy Forbes
Military leaders have described U.S. forces as on the “ragged edge.” What does this mean? Let’s take a look:
The United States has a shrinking force. In 1990, the U.S. had a 546-ship Navy; today we have 288. The U.S. had 76 Army brigades in 1990; today we have 45. Two decades ago, the Air Force had twice as many fighter squadrons and bombers as today.
The death of Anwar al-Awlaki has caused quite a stir in this country. He became an al Qaeda leader, helping plan attacks on Americans and encouraging those who carried them out. He became a key figure in an organization dedicated to destroying, not only our government, but our whole way of life.
Some, primarily libertarians, are scandalized that there was an operation carried out purposely targeting an American citizen. They said that because of this citizenship, al Awlaki should have been afforded the due process of our criminal justice system.
If the Muslim cleric had been shot by someone stepping out of the shadows as he entered his New York City apartment, or if he were gunned down as he enjoyed a night at the theater in our nation’s capitol, then it would really be a problem with our government just exterminating someone they determine to be an enemy of the state. It’s not that this sort of thing, assisted “suicides” and the like, have never taken place – justified or not. This case, on the other hand, is just very visibly public.
[Editors note: so many people want to get their face time as the public turns its attention to the tenth anniversary of the September 11th tragedy. Congressman Forbes is not one of them. He is the real deal, one of he good guys in congress who voted against every single bailout and stood up for America at every opportunity.]
It is ten years later. Most of us remember where we were. We remember who we were with. We remember the phone calls we made, desperate to hear the sounds of our loved ones’ voices, to know they were OK. We remember the images of the twin towers crashing to the ground, the thick, gray ash that covered the New York City streets, the papers that littered the sidewalks, and the panic that followed. We remember the eery, weighty silence that swept the country in the days that followed. The images are burned into our minds.
Over the course of ten years since September 11, 2001, our nation has collectively gone through stages of grief: shock and denial that such a horrific act could have occurred. Anger at those who sought to take the lives of thousands of innocent people. Deep sadness over the senseless loss of lives and reflection as we try desperately to understand. Read more of this article »
The Federalist No. 2
John Jay
Wednesday, October 31, 1787
[Editors note: Earlier this week we posted an article that referenced Federalist 2, written by John Jay. I thought it would be well to include the full article as there is much to learn from Jay's valuation of unity.]
To the People of the State of New York:
WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.
There has been copious speculation about who will arise to oppose Barack Hussein Obama at the end of his first and only term in office. There are almost as many ideas as there are people disgusted with the path of our country. I am looking for something more than an ideal candidate that can win an election. Instead of a politician running for an office, I would suggest we should be looking for a statesman… a leader with a vision and passion.
We often think of men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams… presidents all, but they were not alone in building the fledgling nation. There were others who drove the cause of freedom, helping pave the way to our independence. Patrick Henry was one of these who guided the our country into the light of independence. This future governor of Virginia is credited with helping his contemporaries see the need for independence and helping them to commit to fighting for it.
Through the years, his words have inspired many to a greater belief in both liberty and themselves. He demonstrated a single minded dedication to his country and its people. In view of the hazardous days ahead for our nation, it would be well to study these ideas coming from this man who loved his land and loved liberty. Read more of this article »
Sometimes I have to wonder if the usually wrong, Arianna Huffington was right that our two party system has given us a pro-abortion corporate party and an anti-abortion corporate party. Over recent years it seems the similarities extend far beyond the concern for corporate welfare. It seems that for all the partisan rhetoric each side produces, the net results of their efforts is remarkably similar. For the partisans who believe their favorite political organization can do no wrong… read on, I shall explain.
For those whose memories extend back as far as the 2008 presidential campaign, you may recall how adamant Barack Obama was about closing Guantanamo Bay and bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. His followers hung on his every word, swooning occasionally for good measure. They thought the goal of world peace was at hand as their messiah would lead our enemies, which they didn’t really admit were our enemies, to beat there swords into plowshares. The reality is that he continued the war, even taking credit for the demise of Usama bin Laden. Our soldiers continued to die, and now, we are hearing reports of military involvement in Libya. The more pragmatic of his followers are amazingly silent while the true believers are hopping mad. And to put icing on the cake, Guantanamo Bay is still opened!
On the other side of the aisle, most Republicans talk a good fiscal conservatism game, yet, when push comes to shove, so many are entrenched in their own world of earmarks and pet government programs that economizing efforts are tepid at best. Many of their number have been infected with beltway fever to the point where they don’t even point out the madness exemplified by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recent pronouncements that it may become necessary to reduce military pay… while we are borrowing and sending billions to countries that don’t even like us and our tax dollars pay for gay film festivals in eastern European counties and support research that puts crabs on treadmills. Read more of this article »
Even Barack Obama has come to realize the impossibility of Israel accepting his decree to return to the 1967 borders. Had he considered the proposal before reading it from the teleprompter, it is doubtful the words would have crossed his lips. Unfortunately our public schools have produced several generations of geographically illiterate citizens who don’t know Jerusalem from Jersey City or Jamaica. Because of this, many Americans don’t comprehend why this proposal is such a problem.
Israel has universal service in the IDF, and I’m not sure I would be in favor of in our country, but I must say that most of our young soldiers I come in contact with are polite, intelligent and a credit to our country as well as their uniform. Simply adding an ROTC course or two to high school curricula would help people understand that, among other things, an adequate defense involves more than simply having expensive, high-tech weapons. The public would understand that there is geographic component. Read more of this article »
The next powers vested by this constitution in the general government, which we shall consider, are those, which authorise them to “borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to raise and support armies.” I take these two together and connect them with the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, because their extent, and the danger that will arise from the exercise of these powers, cannot be fully understood, unless they are viewed in relation to each other.
The power to borrow money is general and unlimited, and the clause so often before referred to, authorises the passing any laws proper and necessary to carry this into execution. Under this authority, the Congress may mortgage any or all the revenues of the union, as a fund to loan money upon, and it is probably, in this way, they may borrow of foreign nations, a principal sum, the interest of which will be equal to the annual revenues of the country. — By this means, they may create a national debt, so large, as to exceed the ability of the country ever to sink. I can scarcely contemplate a greater calamity that could befal this country, than to be loaded with a debt exceeding their ability ever to discharge. If this be a just remark, it is unwise and improvident to vest in the general government a power to borrow at discretion, without any limitation or restriction.
It may possibly happen that the safety and welfare of the country may require, that money be borrowed, and it is proper when such a necessity arises that the power should be exercised by the general government. — But it certainly ought never to be exercised, but on the most urgent occasions, and then we should not borrow of foreigners if we could possibly avoid it. Read more of this article »
We see the world we once knew… the safe, secure world where America, with it’s Christian values, stood for truth and justice… slipping away and becoming the very thing we once stood against. We have moved from a society that valued the individual and his contributin to society whose leadership values group think and mindless compliance with the edicts they issue telling us poor misguided souls how we should live.
In addition to the social havoc they have wreaked on our land, they have brought us one fiscal failure after another. More people are out of work. More people have given up trying to find work. And they are just getting started. We Americans are living in a world where many think nothing bad will happen to us – and they are wrong.
For many, the awakening began during the Vietnam War where the politicians threw away the lives of over fifty thousand of our fine young people because they were afraid to defeat the communist dictators. We were once again jarred from our stupor by the September 11 attacks – but it was not long before we were back fighting a mortal enemy by shopping at the malls so the bad guys would not win. A little later, Hurricane Katrina showed us the incompetence at various levels of government who we depend upon to save us from the big bad world. Yet, we still did not learn. Read more of this article »
Rock and Roll Revolution, almost a “theme song” by the Who.
I like Country and Folk songs better than Rock, yet this song has a powerful message in the lyrics if you listen to the words beyond the screaming and throbbing Rock music genre.
From Wikipedia…
“Won’t Get Fooled Again“ is a song by the rock band The Who. Written by Pete Townshend, it combines guitar power chords with heavily processed organ and synthesizer sounds to create a textured, atmospheric introduction that explodes into the verse. It tells of a “revolution of revolutions” in an endless cycle, where “the change it had to come, we knew it all along” but each successive new regime turns out to be just like the old one, so that straight away it’s time once again to ”pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday, then I’ll get on my knees and pray we don’t get fooled again”. Read more of this article »
“The United States has alienated its allies, dismayed its friends and inadvertently gratified its enemies by proclaiming a confused and disturbing strategy of preemptive war. With our allies disunited, the world resenting us and the Middle East ablaze, we need [new leadership] to restore life to the global war against terrorism.“- Jimmy Carter
Funny how those words ring so true, but at the wrong time. The sad reality is that those words, uttered by Jimmy Carter, were said in 2004 in the Presidential campaign of John Kerry, and designed as an attack on then-President George W. Bush.
It was slightly more than a year after the start of the Iraq War and an insinuation of the myth that America waged that war unilaterally, which is not true despite the breathless claims of leftist politicians and pundits. At its inception, the campaign in Iraq – and its predecessor in Afghanistan – was waged by more than sixty nations, all of which were cavalierly dismissed by the Democrats. Read more of this article »
They cheered. We cheered. The courageous words stir our hearts and our spirits. We are inspired by those who speak of standing up against an oppressive government and look to them to lead the way, and secretly hope that their sacrifices will be sufficient to get the job done. But, what if it isn’t enough? What if the task falls to us? Will we take up the task and do what is right, or will we lament the lost freedoms… and apologize to our children for having destroyed their legacy.
We admire Daniel along with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego who stood against prideful monarchs who set themselves against the Almight God. But, some would say, our guns do not compare to the divine worship. This is true, however they could be one of the restraining influences that keeps our current government from trampling on even more of our God-given rights and privileges… including our ability to worship and, worse, spread the word. Read more of this article »
March 6 marks the anniversary of the fall of the Alamo back in 1836. For more than 13 days, 186 brave and determined patriots withstood Santa Anna’s seasoned army of over 4,000 troops. To a man, the defenders of that mission fort knew they would never leave those ramparts alive. They had several opportunities to leave and live. Yet, they chose to fight and die. How foolish they must look to this generation of spoiled Americans.
It is difficult to recall that stouthearted men such as Davy Crockett (a nationally known frontiersman and former congressman), Will Travis (only 23 years old with a little baby at home), and Jim Bowie (a wealthy landowner with properties on both sides of the Rio Grande) really existed. These were real men with real dreams and real desires. Real blood flowed through their veins. They loved their families and enjoyed life as much as any of us do. There was something different about them, however. They possessed a commitment to liberty that transcended personal safety and comfort.
Liberty is an easy word to say, but it is a hard word to live up to. Freedom has little to do with financial gain or personal pleasure. Accompanying Freedom is her constant and unattractive companion, Responsibility. Neither is she an only child. Patriotism and Morality are her sisters. They are inseparable: destroy one and all will die. Read more of this article »
It really wasn’t that long ago. With the way America’s clergymen act today, however, one would think that preachers such as James Caldwell, Jonas Clark, Joab Houghton, and John Peter Muhlenberg never existed. But they did exist; and without them, it is this country we call the United States of America that would not exist.
Caldwell was a Presbyterian; Muhlenberg was a Lutheran; Houghton was a Baptist; and no one really seems to know what denomination (if any) Jonas Clark claimed. But these men had one thing in common (besides their faith in Jesus Christ): they were all ardent patriots who actually participated in America’s War for Independence.
James Caldwell
James Caldwell was called “The Rebel High Priest” or “The Fighting Chaplain.” Caldwell is most famous for the “Give ’em Watts!” story. Read more of this article »
“Minding your own business” works best on a personal and national basis when you clearly define what your “business” is.
The national reality of this statement is now clearly seen in the volatile and crisis state of the Arab Republic of Egypt. Last month riots erupted against the 30 year governance of President Hosni Sayyid Mubarak. This is a presidency that he assumed since the October 14, 1981, assassination of President Anwar El Sadat.
According to the BBC, Mubarak has survived six assassination attempts, so opposition to his leadership is not a new issue for him. However, this latest uprising of his people is probably the greatest threat yet to his presidency.
British historian Lord Ashton once said that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad man.” Many may say that this statement so aptly describes President Mubarak and why change must come to his nation. Read more of this article »
The President has made his spectacular speech, and, by generally accepted political standards, it was a success in that he said something to annoy just about everyone. This thinking presupposes that compromise – moving to the middle – is always a good thing. It’s the product of the belief that all points of view are equally valid and meeting in the middle is something that helps everyone move their agenda forward.
The problem is that when you have completely opposite views, compromise will will do neither side justice. Today, we have a government run by orthodox Keynesians who believe infusions of public cash are necessary to keep the economy running on all cylinders. These people have told us time and time again that more and more spending is the answer to our troublesome times, even if we have to watch our debt skyrocket to do it.
There opponents tell us that excessive government spending saps the market of capital needed to create businesses that hire workers. Then we have some, who say they are in league with the reduced spending, smaller government crowd who, enter into negotiations with the big spenders, already looking for a common ground compromise… so they have given significant ground before the battle has even begun. All the other side has to do is make more and more outrageous demand, depending on the “reasonable” conservatives, usually calling themselves “fiscal” conservatives, desiring to distinguish themselves from “principled” conservatives, to give in so as to give the appearance of a statesmanship that is above mere politics. Read more of this article »
January is often referred to as “Generals Month” since no less than four famous Confederate Generals claimed January as their birth month: James Longstreet (Jan. 8, 1821), Robert E. Lee (Jan. 19, 1807), Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson (Jan. 21, 1824), and George Pickett (Jan. 28, 1825). Two of these men, Lee and Jackson, are particularly noteworthy.
Without question, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were two of the greatest military leaders of all time. Even more, many military historians regard the Lee and Jackson tandem as perhaps the greatest battlefield duo in the history of warfare. If Jackson had survived the battle of Chancellorsville, it is very possible that the South would have prevailed at Gettysburg and perhaps would even have won the War Between the States.
In fact, it was Lord Roberts, commander-in-chief of the British armies in the early twentieth century, who said, “In my opinion, Stonewall Jackson was one of the greatest natural military geniuses the world ever saw. I will go even further than that–as a campaigner in the field, he never had a superior. In some respects, I doubt whether he ever had an equal.” Read more of this article »
CERTAIN POWERS NECESSARY FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, CAN AND SHOULD BE LIMITED
[In Federalist No. 23, Alexander Hamilton spoke of the necessity for an energetic government. "BRUTUS" replied. “BRUTUS” is thought by many to be New York judge Robert Yates, a delegate to the Federal Convention. Antifederalist 23 is taken from the 7th and 8th essays of "Brutus" in The New-York Journal, January 3 and 10, 1788.]
In a confederated government, where the powers are divided between the general and the state government, it is essential . . . that the revenues of the country, without which no government can exist, should be divided between them, and so apportioned to each, as to answer their respective exigencies, as far as human wisdom can effect such a division and apportionment….
No such allotment is made in this constitution, but every source of revenue is under the control of Congress; it therefore follows, that if this system is intended to be a complex and not a simple, a confederate and not an entire consolidated government, it contains in it the sure seeds of its own dissolution. Read more of this article »
Once again Republican Senators failed to hold together to stop the Obama administration from further weakening America’s defenses and bowing to benefit a foreign power. Through smooth talk and lying lips the anointed one convinced no less than eleven GOP Senators to bend to his will and vote for cloture on the START Treaty. The pact, among other things, limits our nuclear warheads and could well limit the deployment of the ones we have in defense of the United states. It was necessary, the President informed us, to placate the Russians whose help we need in stifling Iranian nuclear ambitions. I had to look up the word appeasement in the dictionary as it was not part of my functional vocabulary.
Considering that only 56 of the President’s men voted to bring the treaty to the floor, the Republicans had him and his anti-American agenda beaten by four votes… then they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
It’s hard to tell if this debacle was the result of ineffective leadership or if these people who call themselves Republicans just don’t comprehend the concept of peace through strength. One of them, Lamar Alexander, is quoted as saying, “I will vote to ratify the New START treaty between the United States and Russia because it leaves our country with enough nuclear warheads to blow any attacker to kingdom come and because the president has committed to an $85-billion, 10-year plan to make sure that those weapons work.” Read more of this article »
[Editors note: Speech by Patrick Henry to the Virginia Ratifying Convention given June 16, 1788]
Mr. Chairman, the necessity of a bill of rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before. I have observed already, that the sense of the European nations, and particularly Great Britain, is against the construction of rights being retained which are not expressly relinquished. I repeat, that all nations have adopted this construction — that all rights not expressly and unequivocally reserved to the people are impliedly and incidentally relinquished to rulers, as necessarily inseparable from the delegated powers. It is so in Great Britain; for every possible right, which is not reserved to the people by some express provision or compact, is within the king’s prerogative. It is so in that country which is said to be in such full possession of freedom. It is so in Spain, Germany, and other parts of the world. Let us consider the sentiments which have been entertained by the people of America on this subject. At the revolution, it must be admitted that it was their sense to set down those great rights which ought, in all countries, to be held inviolable and sacred. Virginia did so, we all remember. She made a compact to reserve, expressly, certain rights.
When fortified with full, adequate, and abundant representation, was she satisfied with that representation? No. She most cautiously and guardedly reserved and secured those invaluable, inestimable rights and privileges, which no people, inspired with the least glow of patriotic liberty, ever did, or ever can, abandon. She is called upon now to abandon them, and dissolve that compact which secured them to her. She is called upon to accede to another compact, which most infallibly supersedes and annihilates her present one. Will she do it? This is the question. If you intend to reserve your unalienable rights, you must have the most express stipulation; for, if implication be allowed, you are ousted of those rights. If the people do not think it necessary to {446} reserve them, they will be supposed to be given up. How were the congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great Britain? The states were not then contented with implied reservation. No, Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the states, respectively, which was not given up to the government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You, therefore, by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the general government. Read more of this article »
by Former Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Former Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt just read the full Pentagon report on repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and here’s his analysis:
“Don’t believe the phony liberal media reports that 70% of troops support open homosexual service, because that statistic included ‘mixed’ feelings. A closer reading of the fine print in the newly released Pentagon survey shows our troops answered as follows:
Q45. If you had a leader whom you believed was gay or lesbian, 9% positive, 91% negative or mixed effect on unit’s performance.
Q68c. 85% of Marine Combat Arms, 75% of Army Combat Arms, 64% overall say Negative, Very Negative, or Mixed impact on unit trust.
Q90. 29% would take no action if assigned open showers. 71% would shower at other times, complain to leadership or chaplains, don’t know or do “something else” [including violence.]
[Editors note: Yesterdays article talked about preparation for disaster in the areas of location, provisions, and commodities.]
Self-Defense:
Needless to say, during any kind of disaster, your safety and protection will be completely up to you. If you really think that the police are going to be able to protect you during an upheaval, you are living in a dreamworld.
In both the New Orleans and Los Angeles disasters, police protection was non-existent. Lawless gangs quickly took control of the streets, and people were left to either defend themselves or swiftly become the helpless prey of violent marauders. In fact, in New Orleans, some of the policemen actually abandoned their oaths to uphold the law and joined with the criminals, turning their weapons upon the public.
Face it, folks: in any kind of disaster, you must be able to defend yourself, or you and your family will be meat for these animals of society that will quickly descend without mercy upon the unprepared, unsuspecting souls around them. This requires that you be armed! It also requires that you be skilled enough to be able to efficiently use your arms.
Therefore, I strongly suggest that you purchase firearms sufficient to keep you and your family safe, and also that you practice sufficiently to know how to use them. Read more of this article »
This column was initially released last June. Without a doubt, this has been one of my most requested columns. So, in response to the large number of readers who have asked me to re-release this column, I do so today. And in doing so, I have added some new material to the original column.
One does not have to be a prophet to know that we are on the precipice of some potentially catastrophic–or at the very least, challenging–days. In fact, most of us are already in challenging days, and some are already enduring catastrophic events. That is, if one would call being out of work, losing one’s home, facing life-threatening medical conditions without any prospect of medical insurance, several families being forced to live in one house due to homes being foreclosed, etc., catastrophic.
The potential for an escalation of cataclysmic events, however, is very real. Only a “blooming idiot” would call someone who attempts to prepare for “the day of adversity” a Chicken Little now. Anyone who does not see the storm clouds on the horizon isn’t paying attention. Read more of this article »
It has been an interesting evening watching the election returns and trying to make some sense of them. Political prognosticators are something like economists in that if you would lay them all end to end, they still would not reach a conclusion. It appears that we, in the US, have a double minded electorate.
As this is written there are a few things that we can see. Some are positive and some negative for our country, but nonetheless, this is the world we have to live with for the next two years. While we cannot go back and correct mistakes made this cycle, we can learn from them… and it is essential that we learn from them.
At the top of many people’s list is looking at what happened in Delaware. In what was a disappointment for many tea partiers, Christine O’Donnell came up short in her attempt to defeat the “bearded socialist”. Many of us look at Karl Rove and say “shame on you” as his rant against O’Donnell on the night she won the primary was not only ill advised, but dishonest as he, at the time, did not reveal that he was consulting her liberal, defeated opponent, Mike Castle. Other pundits, attempting to show themselves to be above the common folks who make up the tea party, followed suit.
In spite of the fact that these poor unwashed masses were expected to fall in line and back their establishment candidate, they were given permission to vote for the Democrat or sit out the entire process by this behavior. According to FoxNews polling 18% of the Republicans did not vote for their party’s candidate. Given the minority in voter registration in the state, this softened support most likely did not make the entire difference… but it certainly didn’t help. Read more of this article »
[After the constitutional convention, there was still much discussion prior to its adoption. Some of the concerns were resolved by the addition of the Bill of Rights. Others were not, and we see some of their fears of an open door to tyranny are being realized today. Even so, there was a recognition of the need for some sort of central government. As we see today, the key debate was over just how much power to trust this central government with. This particular letter to an editor which is part of a collection known as the Anti-Federalist papers, signed with the pseudonym of The Federal Farmer, is thought to be the work of either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith, both Virginians.]
October 8th, 1787.
Dear Sir,
My letters to you last winter, on the subject of a well balanced national government for the United States, were the result of free enquiry; when I passed from that subject to enquiries relative to our commerce, revenues, past administration, etc. I anticipated the anxieties I feel, on carefully examining the plan of government proposed by the convention. It appears to be a plan retaining some federal features; but to be the first important step, and to aim strongly to one consolidated government of the United States. It leaves the powers of government, and the representation of the people, so unnaturally divided between the general and state governments, that the operations of our system must be very uncertain. My uniform federal attachments, and the interest I have in the protection of property, and a steady execution of the laws, will convince you, that, if I am under any biass at all, it is in favor of any general system which shall promise those advantages. The instability of our laws increases my wishes for firm and steady government; but then, I can consent to no government, which, in my opinion, is not calculated equally to preserve the rights of all orders of men in the community. My object has been to join with those who have endeavoured to supply the defects in the forms of our governments by a steady and proper administration of them. Read more of this article »
I received this video and had to pass it on because it makes some tremendous points. The respect and appreciation we owe to our veterans and active duty military is obvious to those of us who have been around for a while, but the public educational system today seems to be intent on denying the honorability of this profession and the value of what these men and women have accomplished with their sacrifices.
Like the grandfather, we need to take it upon ourselves to let the younger generation know about what it cost to give us the freedoms we still have. We don’t want to lay a guilt trip on them, but we need to let them know what they have been given and inspire them to build upon it. We need to give them an understanding of, not only the words of our founders and all the patriots that came after them, but the fact that they were normal people, just like the grandfather… or their parents… or their brothers… or themselves. Read more of this article »
The Monday, July 19, 2010, edition of The Washington Post featured an investigative report entitled “Top Secret America,” with the subtitle, “A hidden world, growing beyond control.” The report begins, “The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.
“These are some of the findings of a two-year investigation by The Washington Post that discovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight. After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.
“The investigation’s other findings include:
*Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States. Read more of this article »
If you like the copyrighted content of Political Christian and would like to repost, republish or email the material, permission is granted for any article attributed to Larry Miller provided 1) there is a link back to this site and 2) there is no subscription fee and no paid advertising.
For other circumstances and other contributors, please contact larry@politicachristian.org or follow links that may be provided.
Be the First to Comment 
The fact that Michelle Obama’s appearance at the final NASCAR race of the season did not send a Chris Matthewsesque tingle up the legs of the assembled throng should come as no surprise to anyone who understands the American sport of big time stock car racing. The fans love their country. They are proud of their country. They are a self reliant breed. Most are firm defenders of the second amendment – the one that insures all the others. They also cling to their God, not the government when times get rough.
A recent major investigative report by the Los Angeles Times sheds light on what all this “war on terror” is actually costing—and actually accomplishing. According to the report, “A decade after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, federal and state governments are spending about $75 billion a year on domestic security, setting up sophisticated radio networks, upgrading emergency medical response equipment, installing surveillance cameras and bombproof walls, and outfitting airport screeners to detect an ever-evolving list of mobile explosives.
[I received this from Congressman Randy Forbes (VA-4) and this information comes straight from the Armed Services Committee. It is a short piece but it summarizes where our military is today versus twenty years ago. This is important in view of the fact that the big government types are looking to chop even more from the defense budget to keep funds available for all the social and regulatory programs so dear to their heart.]
The death of Anwar al-Awlaki has caused quite a stir in this country. He became an al Qaeda leader, helping plan attacks on Americans and encouraging those who carried them out. He became a key figure in an organization dedicated to destroying, not only our government, but our whole way of life.
by Congressman Randy Forbes (VA-4)
The Federalist No. 2
There has been copious speculation about who will arise to oppose Barack Hussein Obama at the end of his first and only term in office. There are almost as many ideas as there are people disgusted with the path of our country. I am looking for something more than an ideal candidate that can win an election. Instead of a politician running for an office, I would suggest we should be looking for a statesman… a leader with a vision and passion.
Sometimes I have to wonder if the usually wrong, Arianna Huffington was right that our two party system has given us a pro-abortion corporate party and an anti-abortion corporate party. Over recent years it seems the similarities extend far beyond the concern for corporate welfare. It seems that for all the partisan rhetoric each side produces, the net results of their efforts is remarkably similar. For the partisans who believe their favorite political organization can do no wrong… read on, I shall explain.
10 January 1788
We see the world we once knew… the safe, secure world where America, with it’s Christian values, stood for truth and justice… slipping away and becoming the very thing we once stood against. We have moved from a society that valued the individual and his contributin to society whose leadership values group think and mindless compliance with the edicts they issue telling us poor misguided souls how we should live.
By Daniel James Wood
March 6 marks the anniversary of the fall of the Alamo back in 1836. For more than 13 days, 186 brave and determined patriots withstood Santa Anna’s seasoned army of over 4,000 troops. To a man, the defenders of that mission fort knew they would never leave those ramparts alive. They had several opportunities to leave and live. Yet, they chose to fight and die. How foolish they must look to this generation of spoiled Americans.
It really wasn’t that long ago. With the way America’s clergymen act today, however, one would think that preachers such as James Caldwell, Jonas Clark, Joab Houghton, and John Peter Muhlenberg never existed. But they did exist; and without them, it is this country we call the United States of America that would not exist.
“Minding your own business” works best on a personal and national basis when you clearly define what your “business” is.
The President has made his spectacular speech, and, by generally accepted political standards, it was a success in that he said something to annoy just about everyone. This thinking presupposes that compromise – moving to the middle – is always a good thing. It’s the product of the belief that all points of view are equally valid and meeting in the middle is something that helps everyone move their agenda forward.
January is often referred to as “Generals Month” since no less than four famous Confederate Generals claimed January as their birth month: James Longstreet (Jan. 8, 1821), Robert E. Lee (Jan. 19, 1807), Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson (Jan. 21, 1824), and George Pickett (Jan. 28, 1825). Two of these men, Lee and Jackson, are particularly noteworthy.
Once again Republican Senators failed to hold together to stop the Obama administration from further weakening America’s defenses and bowing to benefit a foreign power. Through smooth talk and lying lips the anointed one convinced no less than eleven GOP Senators to bend to his will and vote for cloture on the START Treaty. The pact, among other things, limits our nuclear warheads and could well limit the deployment of the ones we have in defense of the United states. It was necessary, the President informed us, to placate the Russians whose help we need in stifling Iranian nuclear ambitions. I had to look up the word appeasement in the dictionary as it was not part of my functional vocabulary.
[Editors note: Speech by Patrick Henry to the Virginia Ratifying Convention given June 16, 1788]
by Former Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt
[Editors note: Yesterdays article talked about preparation for disaster in the areas of location, provisions, and commodities.]
This column was initially released last June. Without a doubt, this has been one of my most requested columns. So, in response to the large number of readers who have asked me to re-release this column, I do so today. And in doing so, I have added some new material to the original column.
It has been an interesting evening watching the election returns and trying to make some sense of them. Political prognosticators are something like economists in that if you would lay them all end to end, they still would not reach a conclusion. It appears that we, in the US, have a double minded electorate.
[After the constitutional convention, there was still much discussion prior to its adoption. Some of the concerns were resolved by the addition of the Bill of Rights. Others were not, and we see some of their fears of an open door to tyranny are being realized today. Even so, there was a recognition of the need for some sort of central government. As we see today, the key debate was over just how much power to trust this central government with. This particular letter to an editor which is part of a collection known as the Anti-Federalist papers, signed with the pseudonym of The Federal Farmer, is thought to be the work of either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith, both Virginians.]
The Monday, July 19, 2010, edition of The Washington Post featured an investigative report entitled “Top Secret America,” with the subtitle, “A hidden world, growing beyond control.” The report begins, “The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.
