Posts Tagged ‘Activism’

The Nullification Movement: Pursuit of a Phantasmal Constitutional Doctrine

Monday, January 27th, 2014

Ghosts of Confederates Past

There has long been a legal theory that the states have the right under our constitution to nullify such federal laws as they may unilaterally determine to be unconstitutional.  One of its earliest proponents was Vice President John C. Calhoun, who had hoped to employ the strategy in a dispute over tariffs.  His modern-day adherents wish to pursue this strategy anew.  The problem is that the idea has been roundly rejected by the federal judiciary, and one would have a difficult time demonstrating a successful historical precedent.  Most recently, in the 1950s, and 1960s, states in the South attempted to nullify federal law on the matter of desegregation.  In 1958, in Cooper v. Aaron, the state of Arkansas attempted to nullify the US Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education.  In another attempt at the related concept of interposition, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s decision to reject Louisiana’s attempt to maintain segregation of the schools.  Repeatedly, the US courts have rejected attempts at nullification or interposition, and in that case, effectively derided such attempts as “no more than a protest, an escape valve through which legislators blew off steam to relieve their tensions…”  In short, while the proponents of these two strategies will continuously argue that theirs is the proper approach to our growing constitutional crisis, there is very little in the way of case-law or constitutional law to support their assertions.  Bluntly, the constitution says what it says, and we can no more imagine into it a nullification doctrine than we may assert any other ghostly doctrine into its text.  No apparitional legal doctrine is necessary while the constitution provides a solution within its text.

Some would claim that the states of Colorado and Washington, among others, are engaged in an act of nullification with respect to their legalization of marijuana.  The problem with this is that neither of these states have claimed to have the authority to indemnify citizens involved in the marijuana trade against federal law.  If federal law enforcement agencies decide to crack down in either of these states, or any other, you will quickly see that there is no nullification of any sort, and neither of the states have claimed a right to interpose between residents and the federal establishment.

With all of this in mind, it begs the question: Why do proponents of this particular, historically ineffectual legal doctrine continue to press forward?  The answer may lie in a sort of juvenile disregard for established authority and case-law.    Their claims rest on John C. Calhoun’s basic assertion of a state’s right to nullify federal law, and to interpose between the federal government and its residents.  As we have seen, such claims have never been upheld in any substantive manner by the federal judiciary, and Calhoun also asserted the right of secession.  In 1832, the theory of nullification had its first significant trial, in what would come to be termed the Nullification Crisis.  In this case, South Carolina’s legistlature declared the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 to be unconstitutional.  The state claimed a sovereign authority to ignore the federal statute, and began military preparations to resist federal enforcement.  A compromise Tariff was enacted in 1833, and South Carolina repealed its nullification ordinance.  Both sides claimed victory, but the federal establishment had been preparing to enforce the 1832 Tariff by force if need be, and had enacted a statute for those purposes.

Naturally, the Civil War was in part about the authority of states to nullify, ignore, or otherwise refuse to comply with federal law, or to interpose between the federal government and states’ residents.  The entire Southern strategy during the 1950s and 1960s was to attempt various forms of nullification or interposition.  All such attempts failed in the face of federal use of force or the threat thereof.  One can scarcely imagine why it would be that contemporary proponents of these approaches would continue to advocate the unworkable.  It is as much a senseless, juvenile approach to the serious problems of federal overreach as any sort of serious movement.  The end of the nullification movement will come on the day the federal establishment decides it is time to dispense with it, and begins to strictly impose its will on those who would actually attempt it.  It begins to take on the character of a ranting, stomping toddler, who when deprived of his pacifier, throws a tantrum that has no force and no standing.

It is important to understand that what is in the constitution is in the constitution, and what isn’t there simply isn’t.  While one can point to this statement or that of some framers of the US Constitution for authority for nullification or interposition, where one cannot point with any credibility is the US Constitution itself.  More, one cannot show any successful case history upholding this approach.  It simply doesn’t exist, contrary to the bleating of the sheep who have been roped into this thinking.  They speak often of natural rights, and as a proponent of natural law, I am always willing to listen to such arguments, but I am also a realist in the sense that setting all of the flowery speech about natural rights aside, the problem always lies in the legal recognition of said rights.  Like some of nullification’s proponents, I long for the day when the full scope of natural rights of man are recognized and enforced at all levels of government, but I also understand that in order to see such a formal recognition, it will take explicit changes to our constitution to enforce the claims we might make to them. Rights must exist in the text of our laws, or risk doing without them.  As we have seen in administration after administration, and Congress after Congress, there exists no shortage of those who will extend federal law to every conceivable extent because there is no explicit warrant against it in the US Constitution.  The ninth and tenth amendments notwithstanding, it has ever been that an existing federal law seems in nearly all cases to trump a claimed right not explicitly guaranteed.

With all of this in mind, I wish the nullifiers well, and I hope when they’ve blown off some of the steam, they’ll come ’round to a more rational, proven approach.  We can amend our constitution, and we can do so by two explicit methods laid forth by Article V.  One need not search for the political writings of John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, or even James Madison or Thomas Jefferson to affect change under our constitutional system.  Instead, one need observe only its text, applying the counsel provided by history to embark on a course already established.

Some of the “nullifiers” deride Mark Levin’s efforts toward an Article V amending convention of the states, writing in ominous tones about the potential for a “runaway convention.”  This sort of scare tactic is the sort of thing one might expect from people bent on their own agenda, and while caution is always merited when fiddling around with our supreme law, I think it’s also fair to suggest that we can do so without substantial danger.  Do I endorse all of Levin’s proposed amendments?  No.  Do I think many of them have merit?  Absolutely!  Do I believe we can afford to further obfuscate the matter by pursuing phantasms of nullification that have never availed a peaceable, workable solution?  No. I do not wish to pour energy and resources into the pursuit of a doctrine held to be little more than a temper-tantrum.  Let us admit that to restore our constitutional system, we must first resolve to live within its bounds as a matter of faithfulness to its principles.  That’s the whole point, after all, so that if Article V was good enough for our framers, then it shall likewise be good enough for me.

 

With an Hour to Go Before Vote, Time for Maximum Effort

Friday, September 27th, 2013

I realize some of you will have been burning up the DC phone lines for hours on end, but we simply must not stop. Until the votes are cast, we must tell our Senators often and clearly: Vote “No” on cloture.  This calamity must be stopped, and if we must ruffle some feathers, so be it.  I’m asking all conservatives and libertarians interested in preventing the funding of Obama-care to stand up and be counted and heard.  There’s too much at stake, and the left is always good at shouting loudly.  For once, may we be more determined, more vocal, and more invigorated by the extraordinary efforts we’ve seen this week.  To contact your senators, go to Senate.gov and click your state in the menu on the upper right-hand side of the webpage.  The capitol switchboard phone number is:

202 224 3121

Let us not be fooled into complacency or dejection. We may be doing this again with the House, depending on what happens in the Senate today.  We must make DC listen or risk losing the country to a program that is already devastating the lives of real people, and will ultimately devastate our nation.

It’s not over.

Convicting the Innocent in Lieu of the Guilty

Sunday, January 13th, 2013

Franklin’s Proposal

Barack Obama and the forces of the left want to deprive me of my rights.  Naturally, they want to strip you of your as well.  In that sense, let us admit that they are equal opportunity despots.  There’s a problem, however, and it’s simply this: I have committed no crime and no tort, and I have harmed no other living person, and after nearly half a century on the planet, and with nearly thirty years bearing arms, both privately and on behalf of my country, there are no innocent victims littering a bloody trail behind me.  Obama and his minions would have you believe that their intention is to reduce gun violence, but that’s simply not true.  The real intention is to punish the innocent, and to reward the guilty, but decent Americans who abide the law should have the clarity of conscience to reject the charge and to demand that the Obama administration prove our guilt before depriving us of our liberties.  You see, that’s how it is supposed to work:  The Constitution accords us each due process of law before our rights may be suspended, violated or infringed. Rather than confront the real problem, the gun-grabbers are building sentiment for punishing the innocent in lieu of the guilty.

There is no such notion in American law as a collectivized guilt to be shared between the innocent as well as the guilty.  Both our civil and criminal legal systems are based in individualized concepts of justice. The Fifth Amendment as well as the Second guarantee that neither Obama nor Congress can take our guns simply because they concoct a figment of law in order to compel you. The Fifth Amendment’s text explains the context in which your rights may be suspended or violated:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.(Emphasis added)

The relevant portions of this amendment make it plain that I am entitled to due process of law, and that due process is every bit as much an individual right as any other guaranteed by the constitution, although the government has gotten in the habit of pretending otherwise.  I have a right to my arms, to bear them, and to maintain them in perpetuity without governmental interference, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.  So long as that Amendment remains in force, in order to strip me of that right, the government must first accuse me of a crime, convince a jury of my guilt, and sentence me accordingly.  I have the right to have my day in court, present a defense, and provide exculpatory evidence on my behalf.  Leftists like to pretend that when Congress passes a law and the President signs it, or he enacts new regulations or dicta, this is all the due process to which individuals are entitled, but this is not the case particularly when we are talking about rights explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.   The due process clause clearly applies to individuals.  The text makes that fact plain, since it is written with a singular pronoun:  In describing the “person” who shall have due process of law,  it says: “himself.” One needn’t be a constitutional attorney or a Supreme Court justice to recognize the plain language of the constitution and to understand its meaning.

On this basis, I wish then to know when each of us will be charged in some manner, according to some law, on the basis of which Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and their host of Marxist brethren will present indictments against each of us.  I want to know the charges against me.  I want to know what is my alleged guilt so that I may be deprived of my explicit liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution.  Passing a law to outlaw this gun or that magazine, subsequently accusing me of violating it, does not pass the constitutional stricture against post facto law, in the first instance, nor is such a law an individualized process.  It is instead mass punishment.  Mass punishment of any sort violates all the principles of the constitution, and yet what Obama and his goons would have you believe is that we must be deprived of so-called “Assault Weapons” on the basis of a collective guilt for the actions of a few criminals who have committed horrendous acts, to which we have no relationship.

Still others like Governor Cuomo pretend that the number of rounds we can have ought to be limited, but as one combat veteran explained to me when I was a young private in the Army, “You won’t know how much ammunition you’ll need until the firefight is over.”  This is undeniably true, and I was reminded of it when a caller to Mark Levin’s show made much the same point.  You don’t know how many bad guys you’ll face, or how they will be armed.  Andrew Cuomo screaming at the top of his lungs about whether hunters have a legitimate need for magazines that hold more than ten rounds is a farce, because the Second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.  Do hunters enjoy the protections of the Second Amendment?  Certainly, but they are not the object of the Second Amendment, otherwise we would see an amendment elsewhere defining a “right to hunt.”  This illusion the gun-grabbers want you to stumble over is a nonsensical argument because the founders did not enshrine the right to keep and bear arms in the US Constitution so their heirs could shoot deer, or wild turkeys, or ducks.  They ratified it as a protection against governmental tyranny.

Now we are confronted with a President who wishes to deprive us of our right to keep and bear arms.  He presents no charges against any of us, and he offers no evidence in substantiation of the non-existent charges.  Instead, he plans to act with despotic discretion in the matter.  I have been charged with no crime, and knowing the character of my average reader, they haven’t been charged with a crime, yet this President intends to punish us just as surely as any convicted felon in acting to deprive us of our rights.  This is the sort of thing one sees in any growing tyranny, where laws and dicta are written to prevent crimes that may well never be committed by people who may well never have conceived of committing them.  Vice President Biden offered that if so few as one life is saved by the actions they will take, it will have been worth it.  If that is now to be the argument in favor of banning guns, let us apply it equally to every issue.  How many lives will be needlessly ended under Obamacare?  How many children are aborted each day?  How many doctors make errors each day?  How many people are killed in motor vehicle accidents, or are trampled by cattle, or are struck by lightning?  Using such a fraudulent rationale, one must construct an endless list of things to be banned.

We must ban knives because if only one life is saved, it is worth it.  We must ban doctors, because if even one life is saved, we have done something heroic.  We must ban cars altogether, because if even one life is saved…  We can go on ad nauseum, but ultimately, what the left will reveal if they don’t know you’re paying attention is that if it were up to them, they would ban people.  The left now enacts laws, and too often, the so-called moderate Republicans go along, and the object of these laws is inevitably to punish you for being alive.  If you use gasoline, you must be punished.  If you use paper, you must be punished. If you use water, air, or anything at all, you must be punished.  Only when you are reduced to the level of a slave does the punishment diminish in its frequency and severity.

The entire argument being advanced by leftists is that all we who own weapons are guilty each and every time some lunatic commits a heinous act of violence against his fellow men.  It’s largely based on a fear-mongering argument contrived to make people believe that there is something inherently evil about the instrument, and therefore necessarily evil about all those who would possess them.  This is roughly as sensible an argument as the idea that because some people drive drunk, we should therefore do away with the motor vehicle, or because some Islamic supremacist nuts flew four airplanes into buildings and a fourth into the ground, jetliners should now be banned in the name of the public safety.  By this sort of disconnected anti-reasoning, we should blame Wilbur and Orville Wright for 9/11.

I reject such reasoning, as I reject the authority of all those who would advance it.  Law-abiding Americans are not even distantly responsible for the actions of the shooters who perpetrate these crimes, any more than they are responsible for the hundreds of murders on the streets of Chicago.  Taking away my guns or the guns of other law-abiding Americans will do nothing to reduce the actions of murderous predators, but more than that, nobody has made a valid charge against them.  What is being done in this instance is a travesty, with leftist activists making sure the crisis presented by the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut doesn’t “go to waste.”  Americans should incensed at the notion that the actions of a handful of monsters somehow conveys guilt upon the rest of us, yet that is the basis of the emotionalized appeal being pushed by the anti-Second Amendment crowd.

The left pretends to adore the first Amendment, particularly those parts pertaining to freedom of speech, yet they would insist, one mustn’t permit people to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, and to that extent we are able to agree.  For reasons entirely their own, they are unable to see that in order to prevent the yelling of “fire” in a crowded theater, we do not gag people before they enter.  We do not place this prior restraint upon speech because there is a presumption of innocence, and yet this is precisely the thing they refuse to presume on the part of law-abiding citizens who own guns.  Just as with the First Amendment, we do not punish or impede people in advance, but instead seek justice when they commit such a crime, so should it be for every other right of free people that might be abused.  I will not accept a guilt I had not earned, and neither should any other American.

It is for these reasons that I have resolved that neither Barack Obama nor future politicians shall be permitted to have my guns.  If they insist, I will resist them, and they will be compelled to choose whether to murder me, or to relent in their outrageous punishment levied against a man who is peaceful, and who had committed no crime, or otherwise harmed another soul.  Benjamin Franklin had wanted the Great Seal of the United States to include the motto: “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”  If we are to be confronted with tyrants, may we be faithfully obedient to Franklin’s proposition.

The Inevitable Question Arises: What Shall We Do?

Saturday, January 5th, 2013

I am dispensing with the chore of attaching images to posts in this category.  It takes too much precious time, and effort, better spent on other things.  More than a few of my readers noted on Friday night in response to my To Hell With the Republicans… posting that we have no leader.  It is true that there is no formal leader if we are to do this.  At the moment, there is no Lincoln, and no General Patton, and those who might be haven’t stepped up as yet.  Let me take a moment to offer another notion, since it seems that all too often, we seem to wait on some savior to rescue us.  Why can’t you be that savior?  Why can’t you be the next Lincoln, or Patton, or whatever figure you might prefer?  It’s easy to lay about and pretend that we must continue to lose for lack of a leader to show us the way, but even were we to find one, that leader was not born knowing the ins and outs of the task at hand.  Chances are, they learned through trial by fire, and since it’s our damned country anyway, and nobody else has nearly as much as we who know fully the value of the liberties we have enjoyed, I think it’s time to stop waiting for a leader and simply be one.  Besides, it’s a good deal easier to attract an experienced leader to your cause if you’ve already assembled an army.

One of the things I learned during my Army career that had separated us from our Soviet adversaries had been the fact that if a battalion commander of the Red Army went down on the battlefield, his unit would be fairly ineffective, since without that leader in place, there was nobody who could step up into his place and do the job of commanding an effective unit.  In stark contrast, in the American tradition, every man knew the basics of the jobs two steps above him and had already done the jobs below him, so that when the time came, the American unit could continue to fight even if it lost half its chain of command.  This was because in our services, we expected every member of every unit to know at least the rudiments of leading, and I don’t think this situation is any different.  The top of the Republican heap has gone AWOL, but rather than wait around lolly-gagging in the hope they will return to their senses, it’s time we get off our duffs and lead this ourselves.

I have received suggestions that what would be easiest is to simply conduct a coup against the Republican party, take over its rotting machinery, and build a new party within the husk of the old, breaking out and discarding the useless shell when we are strong enough.  One of the problems is that this often leads to a co-opting of the new, as some of the old will try to cannibalize the fresh blood, or contaminate them with the same old diseases.  I think the average conservative to whom I speak is so thoroughly sick of the GOP in its present form that co-opting them will not be so easy a task.  Like any organization, we must start with a goal, and it can be ambitious, or it can be tepid; it can be vague or it can be specific. In any case, it will be up to you to decide what those goals must be, and what the overall mission of your organization is to be.

If you decide that the best approach is indeed to simply take over the Republican Party in place, I would suggest you find a way to differentiate yourselves from the old guard.  “Conservative” has been claimed by other parties, and let’s face it, despite the factually good record of conduct among Tea Partiers, the media has succeeded in destroying their good name in many quarters, but I had thought something like “Restoration Republicans” might do.  In that vein, we might also call it the “Re-Po Party,” since it would be our intention to re-possess the party from the establishment that now denies its own existence, but exercises a stranglehold over its machinery.  On that note, we might choose to call it the “Re-Establishment Party,” since we have a constitution our forebears once ordained and established, but must now be re-established as the supreme law of our land.  As a bonus, since there is an establishment, there would also be now a re-establishment wing of the Republican Party.  I know some of you will think that last is to play with fire, but if we’re going to be burned anyway, we might just as well make the most of it.

The other approach is to start from scratch, or to join an existing albeit obscure party and make something of it.  One of the most devilish obstacles laid before any party that is neither Democrat nor Republican is the matter of ballot access. Depending upon your state or locale, it may be exceedingly difficult to get a candidate onto the ballot for a given office.  One of the things that helps keep the Dems and Repubs going is that they have party recognition on their side.  Many voters will not have heard of the “Constitution Party,” as poster Ken suggests, or the “American Restoration Party,” one I’ve run across, and the reason is quite simple:  The two major parties basically control the vast bulk of media and media resources, even on the Internet.  The news covers Democrats and Republicans, but seldom any of the other parties.  This makes breaking-in that way difficult, not impossible, but very difficult, and the big two know it, and like it that way.

One reader posted a link on my Facebook profile to an older article by Erick Erickson at Redstate, who suggested simply conducting a coup within the Republican Party, and he offered a number of reasons it would be a good deal easier than most people might believe, and at least a few of the comments offered experiences in agreement.  Still, I believe whatever course we will take, we must embark, and we must do so immediately.  What shall be our first destination? I am investigating several things, but I am certain my readers have many ideas, as reflected in the responses to the previous posting.

One thing about which I am reasonably certain is that we do not have much time remaining in which to save the republic. It’s tempting to look at all that has happened and pretend that it will continue to go on as it has gone on for the indefinite future, but I think we’re all mature enough, experienced enough, and otherwise armed with sufficient understanding of our situation to realize that the system is on the cusp of catastrophic breakdown in some form. With the obscenely absurd spectacle of serious people suggesting the minting of trillion-dollar platinum coins, you have to know that it’s a good deal more dire than is being reported.  Time may be as short as that, never mind the gun-grabbing plans and all the other dastardly legislative proposals now in play.  When a country runs its course, and you see the airing of the most preposterous ideas to cure monetary matters, you know the “powers-that-be” don’t know how to fix it, and you know also that they’re not willing to do what it will take.

Let us begin with the premise that we haven’t the time to build a party from scratch in quite the way we might have done it a generation or more ago.  That leaves the notion of a hostile takeover of the Republican Party, from the ground floor, starting in a sweep of the local party offices.  We will need to begin there, and for that task, we will need lots of people, from all over the nation, pulling in the same general direction.  We will also need a few people who have some experience at doing this, and recent Tea Party experiences will likely offer plentiful, salient wisdom as to the pitfalls and the methods that work. As our faithful poster “The Unit” has mentioned, people who helped to form Ross Perot’s “Reform Party” came to discover that not all would-be leaders turn out to be what they had promised.  Let us be wary of any who too easily wish to lead. We don’t have the time to waste, and we don’t want this to die by sabotage or incompetence.  We have enough daunting challenges ahead of us without unnecessarily imposing new ones.

I believe our single-minded goal must be to restore constitutional government, in all the meanings explicit and implicit in that charge.  Our constitution worked until the politicians began to work around its restrictions and tempt us into turning a blind eye to it, as they bought votes with our treasure.  Now, there’s not enough treasure to be looted in order to satisfy all the promises, and the politicians are pointing fingers.  The problem is that we should have kept these people on a much shorter leash all these years, but how many times have we ourselves bent to the expedient measures of the moment?  If we are to take over the Republican Party, let us start now, this day, this week, and in this moment.  We must keep the pressure on Washington DC Republicans, but we must turn our immediate focus to the state and local levels in order to have any impact.  I believe it can be turned around with your efforts, and the efforts of your friends and neighbors.  Let us resolve that this will be the year that we will begin the task with redoubled efforts to wrest this government from the demagogues and incompetents.  Let it begin today.

Who’s with me?

 

Time to Pick Up and Carry On

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

Carrying On Through Tears

Andrew Breitbart’s sudden passing leaves conservatives with a gaping hole to fill.  I am certain that Joel Pollak, and all the others over at the “Bigs” in the Breitbart.com universe will work like fiends to hold things up, as to my knowledge, they are all committed to excellence.  Still, the in-your-face nature of Breitbart himself, combined with his friendly and funny outlook are irreplaceable, indispensable parts of what he had been to conservatism.  One of the problems we conservatives suffer is that we are almost always too nice, too kind, too forgiving and too desirous of peace to carry on in battles of this sort.  I understand, because nobody wants to exist in a perpetual state of warfare, whether real or cultural, but I am going to ask my readers to do the unthinkable:  It’s time to stand up, speak out, and pursue truth without fear.

Many of you have always done so anyway, but there has been an element wishing to avoid conflicts.  This same element just wants the primary season over, because they don’t like the spectacle of Republicans attacking one another publicly.  I believe this is a faulty idea, and  I don’t think it helps us to rush this along just to wind up with a candidate who will suddenly be beset by attacks we hadn’t known were coming.   That aside, however, we conservatives are much too careful, and much too timid at times.  I’m sure this arises from faith, and from upbringing, but also much more importantly because we have been carefully propagandized to view ourselves as the minority.

We’re no such thing.  The truth of the matter is that those who say they are conservative comprises roughly 42% of the country, while those who will admit they are liberal are something well under 25%.  You would think with a clear ideological lead in the country at large, conservatives would have a different view of their ability to sway the argument in their direction, but after decades, generations in fact, of a media dominated by leftist thought, most conservatives do not realize their general sentiments comprise a plurality of the electorate and the country at large.  This is part of the confidence we gain from people like Breitbart, or Bruce, Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh and a host of others.

When I learned of Andrew Breitbart’s death, like so many others, I was shocked.  I heard Hannity describe sitting in his office frozen in place by the thought of it, and I reflected on the fact that I had a similar numbness when I heard the news.  I couldn’t quite fathom it.  Here had been this glorious warrior for our cause, snuffed out in what should have been the absolute prime of a long life.  Astonishing.  Saddening.  Maddening.   The question for all we who survive him is now: What’s next?

I believe our answer must be unambiguous, and it must be that we will pick up and carry on and since Mr. Breitbart did heavy lifting for any number of us, we will need to step up.  All of us.  In truth, that’s what this blog is really all about.  I started it because some people though I wrote too well to be hidden from sight, and because I have a fire in my belly too, to restore this nation, and carry its flame forward to another generation that has not yet known the embrace of liberty.  That’s what this blog is about, and it’s what Andrew Breitbart was about, and the willingness to do combat with all who threaten our country, and the liberty it had enjoyed must be defeated, and we must take up that fight.

One of the things you learn from the death of a good man like Andrew Breitbart is that we are a nation built upon the strength of a myriad of individuals, each pursuing his or her own ends, but in honest pursuit, redounding to the benefit of all.  That too is part of the meaning of Breitbart, and from him, we can all stand to learn a lesson in how an every-day American can rise and do extraordinary things.  This moment, one of you reading may be moved by a similar fire within, or in the next moment resolve to step up and take his place on the line.  It will take courage, and it will take a willingness to risk all.

Each day, through various portions of my busy day, I grab moments of various talk-shows that are important, and move me, and make me commit to the fight more than the day before.  Sometimes, the host will tell a story that evokes rage over the doings of some politician, and sometimes it will be a monologue by Tammy Bruce imploring conservatives to get off their back-sides and stand up.  Sometimes, it will be an inspiring interview, but others, it will be a fit of laughter as Mark Levin dismisses a drone caller in just the way the caller had deserved.  Any way you get there is fine with me.  Perhaps you will read an inspiring author.  It doesn’t matter how you came to be moved, but once you have, what excuse can you possibly offer to remain still?

My point to you is simple:  We have suffered a painful and tragic loss that nobody can repair, but there is no a breach in our lines, and we must rush forward to fill it.  None of us can today or any day soon hope to replace Andrew Breitbart, but we must advance to fill the gap nevertheless.  We must shed the tears in order to remember him in the reverence his many contributions to our lives demand, but then we must pick up and carry on. We can best honor him, and all those like him by remaining true to ourselves and to one another, while carrying this fight forward.  The left is enjoying this moment, depraved as they are, because in their view there can be no reverence for one they see as an enemy.  Let me make this clear to you, since so few will do it:  They hold the same view of you.

I’m not asking you to rage senselessly, but I am asking you to carry on the fight, and when you find yourself or fellow conservatives under withering attacks, rush in to defend.  Breitbart did this almost reflexively, because he knew that he would inevitably find that the facts would support the conservative party to an argument in most every case, so his default position was to defend conservatism and conservatives.  It’s why he immediately recognized the false narrative the media tried to paint about the Tea Party and racism, sexism, and so on.  He knew how the left plays its game, but by now, so do you.  Armed with this knowledge, you have everything you need to combat the left.

Timidity will not win the day, and as Breitbart liked to tell us, “everything has changed.”  He’s right.  The medium that is the Internet has spoiled the main-stream media’s stranglehold on information.  It’s destroyed their ability to control the message if enough of us stand up to fill the breaches.  They can no longer conceal the truth unless we permit it.  We’re coming to an election in which the country’s very existence may well be at stake, and this will be the time for our war paint.  We have two important advantages:

  1. We have the truth and the facts on our side
  2. We outnumber them

With these, the only remaining element is that we must begin to behave accordingly.

Video Reminder of the Tea Party’s Fight – Video

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

Time to Take America Back

I’ve attached a video to this post as a reminder of the things our departed friend Andrew Breitbart had supported, because while he has passed, the movement he defended and supported goes on.  The Tea Party is still here, and conservatives are still here, so why don’t we take a moment to remind ourselves of where we were just two years ago.  This video went viral at the time of its initial posting on Youtube, but let us not forget this as part of our modern Tea Party heritage.  It’s easy to become dispirited, and it’s easy to forget how much worse others have had it.  It’s time to kick some ass, and we do so, we should remember why we fight:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE]

Fighting Liberal Professors – Time to Go Back to School

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

Should We Fill These Seats?

We all know how useless many of our public schools have become, but have you examined the things that are now delivered as “education” in our publicly-funded universities?  You might believe the worst of had been confined to the elite schools of the Northeast, but in fact, leftists have taken over nearly all the country’s universities and colleges, from the large bustling campuses to the tiny community colleges in middle America.  My adult daughter attends a community college, as she works to finish her degree, but the problem is that even in our small town, the liberals are running the community college.  In a history class this week, she was taught that capitalism is bad, that unions are good, and that socialism is good for workers,  and all of this in the context of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.  Too many paying adults throw their money too casually to the institutions of “higher learning” in which their children are propagandized in the destruction of their own beliefs.

My daughter prides herself on the fact that she confronts these sorts of things.  A few semesters ago, she got herself into some trouble for contesting another history professor’s malevolently biased portrayal of historical events, and worst of all, doing so in the classroom setting.  The professor, unaccustomed to being challenged by students, was dumbfounded and became angry in typical leftist fashion.  It resulted in a bit of an issue that wound up before the Dean and ultimately led to a withdrawal from the class and a refund of tuition for it.  These thuggish professors continue to shove their left-wing views down our kids’ throats, and almost nobody is there who can or will challenge them.  When somebody does challenge them, they bully, cajole, and mock, and hope to swing the class to their support, essentially hoping to shut down any dissent or questioning that may go on.

There is an answer, and in the name of justice, and all that is good in the world, I for one will pursue it, but I want to suggest to you that you consider the same action.  We of more experience and knowledge should enroll in classes, basic history, government, and economic classes we’ve taken before, and sit in those classes with the specific goal of challenging very leftist talking-point of the professor.  It would help to know in advance which are the leftist professors, but even if you throw darts at a class schedule, you’re likely to land on a leftist, because they constitute the vast bulk of professors.  When the summer term begins, I am going to see about enrolling in such a class, and I have the professors all picked out.  It will cut down on my blogging two nights per week, but it will certainly give me more about which to blog.

Somebody must oppose these people.  They’ve been wrecking the political understanding of our children for generations, and if we are to have any hope of stopping the bleeding, we must do it here.  This is where the propaganda is hammered in, and it’s why we’ve lost control of our culture. It’s been a long while since I’ve sat  in a college classroom, and even then, since I went to college as a well-informed adult, I intimidated professors by virtue of the fact that in my early thirties, I was more than willing as a husband, father, businessman, and employee to challenge whatever a college professor might say if I suspected it was biased or false.  Now, nearing fifty years of age, I am not only willing, able, and informed for the chore, but now I know fully how they have been abusing their tenure, and I look at it as sport.

The college professors who infect our universities with their leftist bilge had better worry if this sport catches on.  Rather than mocking conservatives, the free market, and the rest of American culture, for once, we have every chance to turn tables on them.  I hope you’ll find time to do similar in your own communities, and join me in starting upon our long road back.