Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Why indeed!   It seems appropriate to recall its circumstances.  

Background

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

1 Peter 2:4-10

XV. Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament.

"Let a man prooue himselfe, and so eate of that bread, and drinke of that cuppe: (1 Corinthians 11.28)" We must certainely know, that three things bee requisite in him which would seemely, as becommeth such high mysteries, resort to the Lordes table. That is: First, a right and worthy estimation and vnderstanding of this mysterie. Secondly, to come in a sure faith. And thirdly, to haue newnesse or purenesse of life to succeede the receiuing of the same."

 

IX. Of Common Prayer and Sacraments.

"For wee are not strangers one to another, but wee are the citizens of the Saints, and of the houshold of GOD (Ephesians 2.19), yea, and members of one body (1 Corinthians 10.17, 12.12). And therefore whiles our minister is in rehearsing the prayer that is made in the name of vs all, wee must giue diligent eares to the words spoken by him, and in heart begge at GODS hand those things that hee beggeth in wordes. And to signifie that wee doe so, wee say Amen, at the end of the prayer that hee maketh in the name of vs all...

"Iustinus Martyr, who liued about 160 yeeres after Christ, sayth thus of the administration of the Lords Supper in his time (Justinus, `Apol.,' 2): Upon the Sunday assemblies are made both of them that dwell in Cities, and of them that dwell in the Countrey also. Amongst whom, as much as may bee, the writings of the Apostles & Prophets are read. Afterwards when the Reader doth cease, the chiefe Minister maketh an exhortation, exhorting them to follow honest things. After this, wee rise altogether and offer prayers, which being ended (as wee haue sayd) bread and wine and water are brought foorth: Then the head Minister offereth prayers and thankesgiuing with all his power, and the people answer, Amen."

 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

 

Former-comedian-turned-political-rabble-rouser Janeane Garofalo has unleashed her vitriolic verbal assault on Herman Cain this week, telling disgraced talk show host Keith Olbermann that the Republican presidential candidate either suffered from Stockholm Syndrome or was paid by Republican interests to run for president. 

 Janeane Garofalo
.

The full transcripts of her remarks on Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

GAROFALO: In this presidential race, because he deflects the racism that is inherent in the Republican Party, the conservative movement, the Tea Party, certainly, over the last 30 years the Republican Party has moved more and more to the right, but also race-baiting more, gay-baiting more and religion-baiting more; but Herman Cain, I feel like, is being paid by somebody to be involved and to run for president, so that you can go, 'Oh, yeah. They can't be racist! It's a black guy, it's a black guy who is asking for Obama to be impeached.' Or, 'It's a black guy who's anti-Muslim.' Or, 'It's a black guy who is a Tea Party guy.' And I feel like, well, wouldn't that suit the purposes of whomever astroturfs these things-- whether it be the Koch brothers, or ALEC, or Grover Norquist or any anything. Or it could even be Karl Rove. Let's get Herman Cain involved so it deflects the obvious racism of our Republican Party.

OLBERMANN: Well I mean, would that be separate of his delusions of grandeur, or were they just taking advantage of it...?

GAROFALO: He's a business man! 

OLBERMANN: He's a business man, ultimately!

GAROFALO: Whoever pays him and he may have a touch of Stockholm Syndrome. There may be a touch of Stockholm Syndrome in there, because any time I see a person of color or a female in the Republican Party or the conservative movement or the Tea Party, I wonder how they could be trying to curry favor with the oppressors. Is it Stockholm Syndrome or does somebody pay them? 

Read the full story and see the video (if you can stomach it) at Human Events.

Sadly, this is not the first time Ms. Garofalo has spewed such hatred about conservatives and the concerned patriots of the Tea Party movement. In 2009, she called members of the citizens' movement, "a bunch of teabagging rednecks" and said our opposition to President Obama is "about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up."

Help send a clear message to Janeane Garofalo that you are supporting Herman Cain because you believe in the content of his ideas and his character. Email Keith Olbermann's network, CurrentTV, and let them know how you feel: feedback@current.com.

Tell her you want Herman Cain in the White House because you're ready for mature leadership rooted in common sense solutions and proven results. Forward this email to 10 fellow patriots and let them know that liberty-loving conservatives everywhere are under attack from the far Left in America!

And let her know that conservatives everywhere will replace President Obama with someone whose values and vision can help return this country to the glory of the American Dream. Help us in our fight. Donate whatever you're able today. Tell Ms. Garafalo that you put your faith and confidence in Herman Cain for President. 

Thank you,

Friends of Herman Cain Staff

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

As always, we thank you for your prayers, support and generosity.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The title of this article is correct. After having completed a more thorough review of the relevant US Supreme Court cases discussing the Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause, I have discovered precedent which states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the jurisdiction of the US to parents who are citizens. Read that again. I said precedent, not dicta. The precedent holds that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.

Up until the publication of this report today, all discussion of the natural-born citizen issue (from both sides of the argument) agreed there had never been a precedent established by the US Supreme Court, and that the various cases which mentioned the clause did so in “dicta”.

Dicta are authoritative statements made by a court which are not binding legal precedent.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases“.

Precedent that must be followed is known as binding precedent. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court. On questions as to the meaning of federal law including the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and regulations, the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents must be followed.

It can no longer be denied that there is controlling US Supreme Court precedent concerning the definition of a natural-born citizen according to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution. I predict satori will overcome those of you who have labored over this issue. This is not a remote obscure reading. It is, when revealed, a clear undeniable holding and binding precedent established by the highest Court of our nation which specifically defines an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens.

Therefore, Obama – according to US Supreme Court precedent – is not eligible to be President.

PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED BY MINOR V. HAPPERSETT

The direct US Supreme Court precedent is stated in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Furthermore, the precedent stated in Minor is consistent with other US Supreme Court cases – both before and after Minor – which discuss the natural born citizen issue. While that part of the holding in Minor regarding woman’s suffrage was superseded by the 19th Amendment – which Constitutionally established a woman’s right to vote – the rest of the case is good law. And the remaining precedent stated regarding the definition of “natural-born citizen” – with regard to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution – is still binding upon all lower courts.

Therefore, lower court decisions – such as the holding in Arkeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana – which have misconstrued the US Supreme Court’s holding inMinor v. Happersett are wrong. Below, we will review what the Indiana Court of Appeals had to say and explain why they got it wrong. But first we must revisit Minor v. Happersett.

THE SUPREME COURT IN MINOR V. HAPPERSETT DIRECTLY CONSTRUED THE US CONSTITUTION’S ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE

Before revisiting Minor, we must revisit Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) to review a clearly erroneous statement made by Justice Gray concerning the prior holding in the Minor case:

“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: ‘The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ “ (Wong Kim Ark at 655.)

This unfortunate remark by Justice Gray contains a clearly erroneous statement. The Supreme Court in Minor did not construe the 14th Amendment as to the issue of citizenship. Gray is absolutely wrong. The Court in Minor construed Article 2 Section 1, not the 14th Amendment. For over a century, it has been wrongly assumed that the Court in Minor did construe the 14th Amendment, and that the holding of Minor was later superseded by Wong Kim Ark. This is not correct.

A more careful reading of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Minor makes it clear that it did not construe the 14th Amendment with regard to the citizenship of the woman who wished to vote. The question presented was whether, since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, women had gained the right to vote. The Supreme Court in Minor held that nowhere in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, was anyone, man or woman, granted a right to vote. And it was only this part of the Minor case which was superseded by the 19th Amendment.

The other issue decided by the Court in Minor required the Supreme Court to determine if the woman was, in fact, a US citizen. As to this determination, the Court did not construe the 14th Amendment. In fact, the Court specifically avoidedconstruing the 14th Amendment with regard to her citizenship. Instead, the Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2 Section 1:

“There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ‘ are expressly declared to be ‘citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position …

“The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption. If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.(Emphasis added.)

There you have it. The Court stops short of construing the 14th Amendment as to whether the woman in question was a US citizen. The Court made a certain, direct determination that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen before the adoption of the 14th Amendment and that she did not need the 14th Amendment to be a US citizen.

The Court then, having determined that she was a US citizen, avoided any construction of the 14th Amendment as to her citizenship status. Therefore, the holding in Minor is in no way superseded by Wong Kim Ark.

The Court in Minor went on to decide the issue of whether citizens are granted a right to vote by the Constitution, holding that it did not. Again, this part of the holding was superseded by the 19th Amendment, but the determination that Mrs. Minor was a “natural-born citizen” is still controlling precedent.

Since the Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to citizenship, it is clear that Justice Gray’s statement – concerning the citizenship passage by Justice Waite in Minor – was clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2 Section 1 instead of the 14th Amendment. As such, Minor is the only US Supreme Court case which has directly construed the Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen clause. Therefore, Minor’s construction below creates binding legal precedent:

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,^‘ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“ (Emphasis added.)

Whether the holding here was influenced by Vattel is not truly important. Sure, it looks just like Vattel’s definition, but Vattel does not make legal precedent – the US Supreme Court does. All that matters here is what the Supreme court held. So we must carefully examine the actual words stated by the Supreme Court. We must not allow ourselves to be guided by what the Supreme Court did not say. What the Court actually said is what makes law.

In the above passage, the Court noted that Mrs. Minor was born in the US to parents who were citizens. The Court stated that such persons were “natural-born citizens”. The Court also stated – as to such persons – that their “citizenship” was never in doubt.

By recognizing Mrs. Minor as a member of the class of persons who were natural-born citizens, they established her citizenship. Establishing her citizenship was required before they could get to the issue of whether she had the right to vote. In doing so, the Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.

The Court also noted that some authorities include as “citizens” those born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. The Court refers to these people as a different “class”. The Court in Minor refused to comment on the “citizenship” of such persons since Mrs. Minor was not in that class. They didn’t need to reach the 14th Amendment to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen since the Court previously established that she was a “natural-born citizen”. Read the following again:

“It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“

This class is specifically defined as “natural-born citizens” by the Court. The other class – those born in the US without citizen “parents” – may or may not be “citizens”. But the Minor Court never suggested that this other class might also be natural-born citizens.

It’s quite the opposite. The Minor Court makes clear that this class are not Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizens. If this other class were natural-born there would be no doubt as to their citizenship.

The Minor Court refrained from making a “citizenship” determination as to that class, but the Court did note that they were a different class. Later, in 1898, the Court in Wong Kim Ark took the question on directly as to who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment, but that case did not directly construe Article 2 Section 1, whereas Minor did.

In order to avoid construing the 14th Amendment, the Court in Minor had to define those who fit into the class of “natural-born citizens”. Mrs. Minor fit into that class. Mr. Obama does not.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

When Ron Paul addressed the John Birch Society in 2008 http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/409, it was to raise funds for his presidential run. IMHO, his association with JBS was politically unwise because of its associations with unsavory elements of conservatism.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us.

We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.
This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self?government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far? distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old? aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. In this vote?harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" ?? this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize.

They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One?fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three?fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one?fourth of farming ?? that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.
Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three?fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.
At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.
Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.
Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million?and?a?half?dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land."
The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure.

For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.
They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer ?? and they've had almost 30 years of it ?? shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty?stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

So now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30?odd we have ?? and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs ?? do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency. But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do?gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things ?? we're never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
Now we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary ?? his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due ?? that the cupboard isn't bare? Barry Goldwater thinks we can.
At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non?earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.
But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two?thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.
I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.
Federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over?planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960?acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.
Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six?times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do. But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin.
And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died ?? because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.
Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men ?? that we're to choose just between two personalities.
Well what of this man that they would destroy ?? and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger?happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing. This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit?sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.
An ex?GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such?and?such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.
During the hectic split?second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care."
This is a man who said to his 19?year?old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer ?? not an easy answer ?? but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.
We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace ?? and you can have it in the next second ?? surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well?meaning liberal friends refuse to face ?? that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand ?? the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.
You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin ?? just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs?
Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits ?? not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.
Thank you very much.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Last night I got a phone call from my daughter announcing her engagement to a man whom I approve wholeheartedly, notwithstanding the fact that it took him (them?) more than a little while to arrive at this point. I told Mombart (her grandmother) the good news this morning. Her reaction was to recite the words of an old patriotic hymn, the tune of which, coincidentally, we also sang in church today (with a different lyric). If you are creative, you might imagine this hymn is about my daughter's future husband. So Livia and Chris, this is for you with all good wishes and humor:

Once to every man and nation,
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with false-hood,
For the good or evil side;

Some great cause, some great decision,
Offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever,
'Twixt that darkness and that light.

Then to side with truth is noble,
When we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit,
And 'tis prosperous to be just;

Then it is the brave man chooses,
While the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue,
Of the faith they had denied.

Though the cause of evil prosper,
Yet the truth alone is strong:
Though her portion be the scaffold,
And upon the throne be wrong,

Yet that scaffold sways the future,
AND, BEHIND THE DIM UNKNOWN,
STANDETH GOD WITHIN THE SHADOW,
KEEPING WATCH ABOVE HIS OWN.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

In recent years, our analysis of the Constitution has failed to understand the importance of Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Natural Born Citizenship.

A heartbeat can be detected 18 days into a pregnancy. By what authority can one stop a beating heart? Surely not the constitution. A beating heart has Natural Rights that trump man's law. The State can neither grant them by means of a "Bill of Rights", nor take them away. Ironically, if we never had a "Bill of Rights", we might now not have the problem of abortion, for we would be looking at Rights that we inherit from our parents rather than rights that are recognized on account of birth location.

By the same token, the union of a man and a woman in marriage is derived from "Natural Law", not from a license granted by the State. Natural Law looks to Adam and Eve, and to the 10 Commandments for its authentication. Our Constitution does not define "marriage", because the definition in Natural Law (and in the Bible) is thought to be perfectly clear. In defending the Constitution, we must defend the "natural" definition of marriage. They are impossible to separate.

The Federalists fought tooth and nail against having a "Bill of Rights" because they knew that rights which could be granted by government could also be taken away. We Republicans are the natural descendants of these Federalists, not of their opposition "Democrats". We believe in human rights that are God-given, at conception, and cannot be taken away. We also believe in Natural Law that we have no right to change and that extends directly to the individual and to families composed of fathers and mothers, men and wives, children, their relationship to other men, and most importantly to their relationship with God the Creator.

Needless to say, if we understood the meaning of "Natural", we also wouldn't have a President playing games with the clear Constitutional mandate that he be a "Natural Born Citizen." The term "Natural Born Citizen" is in the unamended Constitution. It is not addressed in the Bill of Rights. Neither is it well defined in any part of the U.S. Code. The fight to rediscover the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" is not merely about presidential politics. It is closely connected to our fight to maintain the Founders' insistence that government is the creature "of the people", and that every citizen possesses a personal sovereignty that supersedes all her claims and all the "rights" that she might grant.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The soil of Europe is purchased with American Arrogance

1. The American Cemetery at Aisne-Marne, France... A total of 2289

2. The American Cemetery at Ardennes, Belgium... A total of 5329

3. The American Cemetery at Brittany, France... A total of 4410 

4. Brookwood, England - American Cemetery... A total of 468

5. Cambridge, England... A total of 3812 

6. Epinal, France - American Cemetery... A total of 5525 

7. Flanders Field, Belgium... A total of 368

8. Florence, Italy... A total of 4402 

9. Henri-Chapelle, Belgium... A total of 7992

10. Lorraine , France... A total of 10,489 

11. Luxembourg, Luxembourg... A total of 5076 

12. Meuse-Argonne... A total of 14246

13. Netherlands, Netherlands... A total of 8301

14.  Normandy, France... A total of 9387

15. Oise-Aisne, France... A total of 6012 

16. Rhone, France... A total of 861

17. Sicily, Italy... A total of 7861

18. Somme, France... A total of 1844 

19. St. Mihiel, France... A total of 4153 

20.  Suresnes, France... A total of 1541 

Total count:  104,366  dead Americans

See the full gallery on Posterous

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »