The Chronicle - Mark Alexander

Dezinformatsia

Stirring the melting pot: "Now to the growing national backlash against the state of Arizona over its tough new immigration law that says police can stop people just on the suspicion they might be there illegally." --NBC's Brian Williams

"It's now gone beyond protest to threats of a boycott, as Arizona becomes a laughing stock to some." --NBC's Andrea Mitchell

"Critics are having a field day with this, Sheriff Arpaio, as you know. Some are calling for a business boycott of the state of Arizona. The Homeland Security Secretary, used to be the governor of Arizona, says she doesn't like this, this bill. Editorial cartoons are making fun of it. Here's one where a guy goes up to a fast food counter and orders nachos and is immediately surrounded by police for probable cause. Are you worried that it affects the image of your state?" --NBC's Matt Lauer to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

"Let me talk about the politics of this. It's forcing the president to address immigration policy. It's forcing Republicans and Democrats to wrangle with it. But what really is driving voters and emotion right now are jobs and the economy. Is this a bad issue politically at this time?" --MSNBC's Contessa Brewer

"Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant." --MSNBC on-screen caption -- begging the question, "What part of 'illegal' doesn't MSNBC understand?"

Blame Rush Limbaugh: "I think it is fair [for Bill Clinton to blame Rush Limbaugh and other talk hosts for inciting violence]. There is a climate of violence on the right. Liberals are demonized in the most personal way. I mean, you know, Rush comes out and has this wonderful op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal at the end of the week and saying, you know, 'conservatives are protesting because we love our country,' and unfortunately the rhetoric of the right has all too often been they love their country and we on the left do not. We are traitors, we are un-American, we are unpatriotic. Obama is weakening our national defense on purpose." --Salon's Joan Walsh

Investors Business Daily via Patriot Post

Editorial Exegesis

"Idaho requires its attorney general to sue the feds if ObamaCare passes while Virginia, the cradle of liberty, heads the line of states in front of the federal courtroom. Somewhere Patrick Henry is smiling.

As the second coming of King George III seeks to impose the leftist mandate of national health insurance on the unwilling American people, the states are once again in revolt. This time they're unwilling to be the colonies of an imperial federal government determined to spend and tax us into bankruptcy while treating the Constitution as if it were bird cage liner. Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they risked being hanged by the British crown because they said we shouldn't be taxed without representation? Well, we have representation, and they care not about the people they represent. ...

Not amused is Idaho, the latest state to jump into the fray last Wednesday, with Gov. C.L. 'Butch' Otter signing into law a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance. 'The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' Otter told reporters. 'But I'll tell you what, you got 36 states; that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass.'

Otter shares the belief that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is a mandate to buy health insurance or anything else. ... He believes in the 10th Amendment, in states' rights as defined in the Constitution. All powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states and to the people. Mandating health insurance is not one of them. Some would say these states are stepping on Superman's cape, that federal law trumps state law. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says that's true only when the federal law has some basis in the Constitution and is not in itself unconstitutional." --

Investor's Business Daily

Patriot Post - The Brief

Toward the Nationalization of Health Care

With Senate and House passage of Barack Hussein Obama's so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," liberals have now sealed the deal to nationalize the American health care system -- almost 17 percent of the U.S. economy. Passage of this measure completes the "triple crown" of the Left's Socialist agenda: Social Security, Medicare and now health care. One may conclude that nationalized health care, like Social Security and Medicare before it, will soon be bankrupt. (See how your Senator and Representative voted.)

There is no provision in the United States Constitution giving the central government the authority to nationalize health care, but liberals have never let the Constitution stand in the way of their incremental efforts to socialize the U.S. economy.

Remarks by the leaders of both House Republicans and Democrats demonstrate that neither Party's leadership has sufficient regard for First Principles, for Constitutional Rule of Law.
Most Republicans give it scant lip service, while virtually all Democrats reject Rule of Law outright.

In his remarks about the legislation, Republican Leader John Boehner did mention the Constitution, but repeated the same worn refrains about what the American people want.

"Today, this body, this institution, enshrined in the first article of the Constitution by our Founding Fathers as a sign of the importance they placed on this House, should be looking with pride on this legislation and our work. But it is not so. ... When we came here, we each swore an oath to uphold and abide by the Constitution as representatives of the people. But the process here is broken. The institution is broken. And as a result, this bill is not what the American people need, nor what our constituents want. ... We have failed to listen to America. And we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents."

No, Mr. Boehner. You did not take an oath to support and defend the "will of our constituents."

In her remarks about the legislation, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not, of course, mention the Constitution, but she did offer this adulterated view of First Principles, an outright prevarication: "In [passing this legislation], we will honor the vows of our Founders, who in the Declaration of Independence said that we are 'endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' This legislation will lead to healthier lives, more liberty to pursue hopes and dreams and happiness for the American people."

This assertion is an affront to everything our Founders embodied in our national documents of incorporation, and Pelosi, et al., know that.

Pelosi added, "You will be joining those who established Medicare and Social Security... This is an American proposal that honors the tradition of our country."

Nails in the coffin!

For his part, Obama remarked, "At a time when the pundits said it was no longer possible, we rose above the weight of our politics. We proved that this government, a government of the people and by the people, still works for the people. ... This isn't radical reform, but it is major reform. This is what change looks like. ... This represents another stone firmly laid at the foundation of the American Dream."

That would be a tombstone, a grave marker for American liberty.

Pulling the Plug on our Constitution

Mark Alexander in the Patriot Post

Pulling the Plug on our Constitution
Our Constitution is on life support, and House Democrats are about to pull the plug.

Leaders of the Democrat Party ("Progressives" as they call themselves, Leftists as we call them) have been unable to garner popular or even Democrat Party support for their plan to socialize our health care system. Fortunately, Republicans are united in their opposition to this one issue.
Barack Hussein Obama, titular head of the Demos, proclaimed, "I want some courage. I want us to do the right thing."

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi concludes, "Nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill."

She is proposing to overtly circumvent our Constitution by way of the "Slaughter Solution." Rep. Louise Slaughter, chairman of the House Rules Committee, proposes to pass legislation using the "self-executing rule," which will allow the House to accept the already-passed Senate health care bill by presumption alone, thus negating a formal up-or-down vote by House members.
Pelosi confessed, "I like it because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

Unfortunately, there is precedent in invoking the "self-executing rule" -- by Republicans, no less -- concerning "mundane" legislation agreed to by House leaders of both parties. Unconstitutional as these precedents are, there is nothing "mundane" about ObamaCare.

"Slaughter" and "self-executing" may describe both the process and the electoral future of many Democrats in the House.

Most of the Leftist-controlled political and popular debate about the Democrat proposal to turn over to the central government control of more than 17 percent of the U.S. economy, is focused on one question or another -- what will it cost or save, who will pay and who won't, who will be covered and for what, will there be enough physicians to support this in 10 years, will federal funds be used for abortion, can our economy afford another trillion dollar boondoggle, does it really address the entitlement cost tsunami we're facing, ad infinitum.

These might be interesting topics for debate, but none are germane.

The only relevant debate must begin with First Principles, our Constitution and Rule of Law.
Does our Constitution allow the Executive and Legislative branches to collaborate to confer authority upon the federal government over, in this case, so-called "health care reform"?
Those who laid the Foundation of our Constitution were crystal clear about its enumeration of both the authority and limits upon the central government.

James Madison, our Constitution's primary author, wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."

Madison continued, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

To that point, Thomas Jefferson asserted: "[G]iving [Congress] a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole [Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to be given them. [The Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

Clearly, our Constitution, does not authorize Congress to nationalize health care, anymore than it authorizes Congress to do most of what it does today.

That notwithstanding, Obama and his Leftist cadres in the House and Senate are moving forward with their endeavor to inflict socialized medicine upon the United States.

They have again, one and all, abandoned their oaths to "support and defend" our Constitution.
Democrat "leaders" have all been questioned about constitutional authority, and have uniformly asserted that the question is irrelevant.

Typical of their non-responses was this indignant question from Speaker Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

Such utter contempt for our Constitution explains why Democrats refuse to support any measure to cite constitutional authority for legislation. For example, the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359) would require that "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act," but for years, insurmountable obstacles have prevented passage of HR 1359 -- and you know who they are.

As for the Slaughter Solution, Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates, "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, and that in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively."

Typical of Republican protests about this effort to evade the Constitution's prescription for passage of legislation, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) called the ruse "the acme of arrogance" and the "shredding the U.S. Constitution."

Unfortunately, more than a few Republicans have dabbled in such unconstitutional chicanery. Thus, I am reminded of the admonition regarding hypocrisy in Matthew 7:4-5. In contemporary terms, Republicans must first demonstrably abide by First Principles before calling on Democrats to do the same.

The only silver lining to this cloud: If Democrats pass ObamaCare, every medical complaint by a Democrat constituent will be hung around their necks.

Fellow Patriots, stand firm for Essential Liberty for we still hold these Truths.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark AlexanderPublisher, PatriotPost.US

More From Mark Alexander

The Demo-gogues

Just words, just politics ... just the Constitution: "We have debated this issue now for more than a year. Every proposal has been put on the table. Every argument has been made. I know a lot of people view this as a partisan issue, but, look, the fact is both parties have a lot of areas where we agree -- it's just politics are getting in the way of actually getting it done." --Barack Obama

Arrogance: "The American people want to know if it's still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don't know about the politics. But I know what's right." --Barack Obama (We're waiting for you to get out of the way so we can look out for our own interests, not have you do whatever you "know" is right whether we want it done to us or not.)

Big Brother: "You know what? It's been such a long time since we made government on the side of ordinary working folks, where we did something for them that relieved some of their struggles." --BO

Non Compos Mentis: "Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it's estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent [sic], which means they could give you a raise." --Barack Obama

Glass half empty: "I have no intention of not passing this bill. Let me say it in a positive way: I have faith in my members that we will be passing this legislation." --House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

She may be a dreamer: "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance." --Nancy Pelosi (So the rest of us can pay for these unemployed artists and photographers to have insurance? Whatever happened to artists suffering for the sake of their art?)

Democrats to defeat death! "Today, 70 Americans will die for lack of health insurance, 70." --Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) (So why don't most provisions in this bill kick in for four years?)

Patriot Post "Editorial Exegesis"

Legislation by Fiat: The Politboro uses this tactic.

"We're not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely 'deem' that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway.

Under the 'reconciliation' process that began [Monday] afternoon, the House is supposed to approve the Senate's Christmas Eve bill and then use 'sidecar' amendments to fix the things it doesn't like. Those amendments would then go to the Senate under rules that would let Democrats pass them while avoiding the ordinary 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation. This alone is an abuse of traditional Senate process.

But Mrs. Pelosi & Co. fear they lack the votes in the House to pass an identical Senate bill, even with the promise of these reconciliation fixes. House Members hate the thought of going on record voting for the Cornhusker kickback and other special-interest bribes that were added to get this mess through the Senate, as well as the new tax on high-cost insurance plans that Big Labor hates.

So at the Speaker's command, New York Democrat Louise Slaughter, who chairs the House Rules Committee, may insert what's known as a 'self-executing rule,' also known as a 'hereby rule.' Under this amazing procedural ruse, the House would then vote only once on the reconciliation corrections, but not on the underlying Senate bill.

If those reconciliation corrections pass, the self-executing rule would say that the Senate bill is presumptively approved by the House -- even without a formal up-or-down vote on the actual words of the Senate bill. Democrats would thus send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature even as they claimed to oppose the same Senate bill.

They would be declaring themselves to be for and against the Senate bill in the same vote. Even John Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) never went that far with his Iraq war machinations. ... This two-votes-in-one gambit is a brazen affront to the plain language of the Constitution, which is intended to require democratic accountability.

Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says that in order for a 'Bill' to 'become a Law,' it 'shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.' This is why the House and Senate typically have a conference committee to work out differences in what each body passes. ...

If Congress can now decide that the House can vote for one bill and the Senate can vote for another, and the final result can be some arbitrary hybrid, then we have abandoned one of [James] Madison's core checks and balances." --The Wall Street Journal

2 Rules for Conservatives

Alexander's Essay – March 11, 2010

When Debating a Liberal, Start With First Principles

There are only two rules you need to know when debating a liberal.

Rule Number One: You must define the debate in terms of First Principles, which is to say, you must be able to articulate those principles. (Read Essential Liberty for more.)

Conservatives subscribe to the fundamental doctrine of Essential Liberty as enumerated by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. We understand that individual responsibility is the foundation of a free society. We advocate for the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary. We promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.

In short, conservatives endeavor to conserve Rule of Law as our guiding principle, and any legitimate policy debate must start there.

Liberals, on the other hand, subscribe to principles du jour; whatever solution feels best for the day's most popular, fashionable, or prominent cause célèbre.

In short, they believe that the feel-good solution (a.k.a. "rule of man") supersedes Rule of Law.
For the most part, today's liberals are a case study in hypocrisy, the antithesis of the once noble Democrat Party, the party of Thomas Jefferson.

Liberals speak of unity, but they incessantly foment disunity, appealing to the worst in human nature by dividing Americans into constituent dependencies. They speak of freedom of thought -- except when your thought doesn't comport with theirs. They assert First Amendment rights -- except when it comes to religion or speech that doesn't agree with theirs. They promote tolerance -- except while practicing intolerance and seeking to silence dissenters.

Liberals deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny. They protest for the preservation of natural order while advocating homosexuality. They denounce capital punishment for the most heinous of criminals while ardently supporting the killing of the most helpless and innocent among us -- the unborn, the infirm and the aged.

Liberals loathe individual responsibility and advocate statism. They eschew private initiative and enterprise while promoting all manner of government control and regulation.

Now, I'm not suggesting that everything liberals believe or support is wrong, but their underlying philosophical doctrine surely undermines our "unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as established by "the laws of nature and nature's God."

As Ronald Reagan observed, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Thus, don't be snookered into defending or denouncing the merits of any issue as framed in liberal terms. Such deliberations are rarely resolved and tend to end in gridlock, or worse, deadlock. (If congressional Republicans really want to end gridlock, they too need to control the debate in terms of First Principles.)

One means of taking control of a debate is to inquire whether an opponent has ever taken an oath to "support and defend" our Constitution. (If you have not, or wish to reaffirm your oath, then we invite you to do so by registering with The Essential Liberty Project.

If your opponent answers "yes," then inquire as to which constitution -- the one upon which our nation was founded, or the so-called "living constitution" adulterated by generations of legislative and judicial diktat.

Of course, you must be prepared to explain the difference -- to explain that only one of these constitutions exists in written form, while the other is a mere fabrication. This can be best accomplished by presenting your copy of the Essential Liberty Guide.

Another means of framing the debate is to ask your opponent to articulate the difference between constitutional Rule of Law and the rule of men. Again, you must be prepared to explain the difference.

You may also start by asking your opponent what "liberal" means. Most liberals will define "liberal" in terms of the issues they support, so ask your opponent if those issues comport with our Constitution.

Once you've framed the debate in terms of First Principles, give your liberal opponent a recess, and a copy of the Essential Liberty Guide.

Principled liberals (admittedly an oxymoron) will remain satisfied that what they feel is equivalent to, or even supersedes, Rule of Law. These poor souls are on their way to becoming über liberals, or Leftists, and are probably beyond any logical redemption.

But if you use your Essential Liberty Guide as an education tool rather than a hammer, some liberals may actually start to come around, and this conversion should be your primary objective.

Further, if confronted by your opponent with a challenge to provide a constitutional defense for some Republican legislation, don't bite. Most Republican legislation, though it may be more in line with our Constitution, rarely comports with the plain language of Rule of Law. Don't let your opponent frame you as a hypocrite. Remember: You are, first and foremost, a constitutional conservative, not a tool of any political party.

Alas, selective interpretation of our Constitution has expanded its meaning beyond any semblance of its original intent, and it will take time and discipline to contract its meaning through due process to restore its original intent.

Finally...
Rule Number Two: You must distinguish between liberals and Leftists. The former subscribe to a plethora of contemporaneous solutions, while the latter are bona fide "useful idiots," those Western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas that terminate with the institution of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism masquerading as regulation and taxation.

When it comes to debating Leftists, the outcome is utterly dependent on who has superior firepower.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark AlexanderPublisher, PatriotPost.US

"Now Is the Hour to Sieze the Power"

Short Cuts
"Nancy Pelosi, the speaker and leader of the San Francisco Democrats, says her members 'are very excited about what comes next.' For many of them, that's 'excited' as in 'hysterical.'" --Washington Times editor emeritus Wesley Pruden

"So there was President Obama giving his bazillionth speech on health care, droning yet again that 'now is the hour when we must seize the moment,' the same moment he's been seizing every day of the week for the past year, only this time his genius photo-op guys thought it would look good to have him surrounded by men in white coats." --columnist Mark Steyn

"President Obama met with ten House Democrats opposed to the health care bill. He did all he could to get their votes. He promised to campaign for them in their districts and when that didn't work, he threatened to campaign for them in their districts." --comedian Argus Hamilton

"These self-anointed intellectuals are people who think that those who believe in God and Jesus Christ, those who 'cling to their guns and their religion,' are a lower form of animal life, while they, themselves, have no problem whatever accepting Obama as a messiah and, in the past, deifying the likes of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Let's face it, when you kneel in a church, you're accepting that there is something greater and wiser than yourself in the universe. When, on the other hand, you kneel to a left-wing politician, you're merely emulating Monica Lewinsky." --columnist Burt Prelutsky

Delusions From a Parallel Universe

Dezinformatsia
Delusions from a parallel universe: "Campaign promises are about getting elected; once there, they are quickly forgotten. Courage is not a word you hear very often in discussions about politics. Not Barack Obama. Whether or not you support or even understand his health care plan -- and the polls suggest that right now most Americans don't -- you must admit this: Obama is a man who does everything humanly possible to keep his promises. He promised health care reform, and he is risking his presidency to deliver it. If that's not courage, what is?" --political commentator Susan Estrich (Try blind ideology.)

Oh no! "Now that we have finally arrived at the do-or-die moment for Obama's signature issue, we face the alarming prospect that his presidency could be toast if he doesn't make good on a year's worth of false starts. And it won't even be the opposition's fault. If too many Democrats in the House defect, health care will be dead." --New York Times columnist Frank Rich

Propaganda FAIL: "John Patrick Bedell, whom authorities identified as the gunman in the Pentagon shooting on Thursday, appears to have been a right-wing extremist with virulent antigovernment feelings." --Christian Science Monitor staff writer Peter Grier (Oops, Bedell was a registered Democrat and an anti-Bush 9/11 "truther.")

Rather racist: "One, part of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama's leadership. And the Republicans will make a case and a lot of independents will buy this argument. 'Listen he just hasn't been, look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death.' And a version of, 'Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate' -- this is what's been used against him -- 'but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.'" --HDNet's Dan Rather trying to put words in Republicans' mouths

Mark Alexander-The Patriot Post

Second Amendment -- Still 'The Palladium of Liberties'
Mark Alexander

Now more than ever, armed Patriots must stand ready, in the words of Patrick Henry, to "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel."

"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." --James Madison

James Madison's words regarding the "ultimate authority" for defending liberty (Federalist No. 46) ring as true today as in 1787, when he penned them.

Likewise, so do the words of his appointee to the Supreme Court, Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in his 1833 "Commentaries on the Constitution," "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

In recent decades, the "enterprises of ambition" and "usurpation and arbitrary power" among Leftist politicians and their corrupt judicial lap dogs have become malignant, eating away at our Essential Liberty and our constitutional Rule of Law.

This has never been more so than since the charlatan Barack Hussein Obama duped 67 million Americans into seating him in the executive branch.Much of the debate about the need to infringe upon the right to bear arms is framed in terms of safety.

Gun-control advocates argue that more guns equal more crime.

Those advocating for more lenient gun laws argue that more guns equal less crime. Only one of these diametrically opposed views can be true.

While the latter group is factually and demonstrably correct, basing Second Amendment arguments on the issue of safety is as fallacious as attempting to assert the 14th Amendment argument.

In an editorial this week, the conservative Washington Times opined, "The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city's murder rate plummeted 25 percent. The high court should keep that in mind..."

No, they should not. After all, violence is a cultural problem, not a gun problem, and certainly not a Second Amendment problem.

What each member of the Supreme Court must only keep in mind is the plain language of the Constitution, the Second Amendment and the First Principle of his or her oath: "To support and defend our Constitution," as should everyone who has taken that oath.

Accordingly, the High Court should find that the gun restrictions in Chicago, and by extension, those in any other state, are in direct violation of the inherent rights of the people "to keep and bear arms."

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark AlexanderPublisher, PatriotPost.US

Thank You Algore

The First Statement of Conservative Principles

"The Constitution, which at any time exists 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all." --George Washington

Back in 1996, a small group of Patriots deeply devoted to our Constitution, which we had pledged "to support and defend," endeavored to challenge the Leftmedia's stranglehold on public opinion, particularly as it pertained to the role of government and promotion of Leftist policies.

To provide sustenance for those endeavoring to restore our Constitution's rightful standing as the Supreme Rule of Law of the United States, we established The Federalist, an online grassroots journal providing constitutionally conservative analysis of news, policy and opinion, with the express mission of "advocating Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values."

Our objective was, and remains, "to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles."

Demand for The Federalist grew rapidly, to put it mildly. A few years later, we adopted the name The Patriot Post in keeping with the growing constituency we serve.

Now, I certainly do not suggest that we were the only folks back in '96 advocating for the restoration of constitutional Rule of Law. We took our inspiration from, and owe our success to, President Ronald Reagan and his Patriot team, many of whom were our earliest promoters and supporters. They sparked the flame to revitalize our Constitution's legal standing some two decades earlier, at the juncture of our nation's
bicentennial.

We also owe a great debt to conservative protagonists such as National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr., and the Heritage Foundation's Edwin J. Feulner, both of whom provided meaningful guidance and assistance to get us under way.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I failed also to credit Albert Arnold Gore, who "took the initiative in creating the Internet" for us, and then galvanized those of us interested in national sovereignty in opposition to his utopian scheme to socialize the world economy, ostensibly to thwart "global warming."

I believe the most important factor in our success has been our steadfast commitment to the Rule of Law, the supremacy of our national Constitution in all matters pertaining to the role and authority of our central government, and our analysis of the same.

We have endeavored to keep our eye on the prize, and we've thus avoided being co-opted by any political party or organization.

That will be the challenge for the independent Tea Party Patriots and other conservative movements -- to keep their eyes firmly affixed on the task of restoring our Constitution and its prescription for Rule of Law, and to avoid the risk of being swallowed up by large, centralized poli-wonks.

Last week, my friend Ed Feulner, and many other colleagues, released "The Mount ernon Statement," a document similar in substance to the "Sharon Statement" released in 1960 by a group of conservative intellectuals including Bill Buckley, M. Stanton Evans and Annette Kirk (widow of influential American conservative Russell Kirk).

Feulner and his staff at the Heritage Foundation have been uniformly resolute in their support for constitutional Rule of Law.

Ten years ago, I met with key staff members of the Heritage Foundation and encouraged them to adopt the practice of posting, in the introductory abstract of their papers, the specific constitutional authority for every policy position they advocate. Two years ago, Heritage launched their massive First Principles initiative, with the objective of asserting constitutional authority as the centerpiece of their mission.

While I applaud the entire Heritage team for their First Principles endeavor, I note that some of the principal signatories of the Mount Vernon Statement, though "conservative" by label, do not meet The Patriot standard of reliance upon the plain language of our Constitution, nor are many of those signatories representative of the "grassroots" movement they seek to unify around this statement.

With that in mind, I reiterate that any real movement to restore the integrity of our Constitution must be bottom-up, not top-down. Patriots need only subscribe to one mission statement, the first statement of conservative principles, our Constitution.

The GOP establishment squandered its opportunity to reassert First Principles when it held majorities under George W. Bush, and the party will have to demonstrate an authentic commitment to those principles if it is to gain the trust of a single American Patriot.

Real constitutional reform will come about only when Patriots across the nation demand the restoration of Essential Liberty as "endowed by their Creator," and they widely articulate the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men.

If you have taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution, I invite you to revisit that venerable document and ask you to reaffirm your oath.

If you have not affirmed that commitment, I invite you to gain a full understanding of our Constitution and then take your oath -- and abide by it to your last breath, just as our Founding Fathers mutually pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

In the words of George Washington, "Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...?"

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Patriot Post

The Gipper
"Our current circumstances in the 21st century are not greatly different from those surrounding our Founders, who remarked on the long train of abuses and usurpations whose ultimate design seemed clearly to abrogate all the citizens' rights and render them subjects of an absolute despotism. The Founders' impending tyranny arose under an unjust king; ours derives from a centralizing and increasingly powerful national government that intrudes into ever-growing aspects of our lives, and prevents us from freely exercising our acts of self-government. We New Federalists therefore seek a return to our foundation on the principles of self-government. We seek a new birth of federalism because we seek a new birth of freedom, both for ourselves and for our posterity." --Ronald Reagan

Those Pesky Tea-Baggers Are At It Again

Left Blames Tea Parties for Austin Plane Crash

On Thursday, a deranged man supposedly angry at the IRS flew a plane into one of their offices in Austin, Texas. Joseph Andrew Stack, the pilot, was killed in the crash, and several people were injured. Stack also apparently set his house on fire before leaving on his mission; his wife and daughter escaped. The attack is being considered criminal, not terrorist.

Columnist Michelle Malkin writes, "Investigators found a Web posting, identified as Stack's 'suicide manifesto,' in which he railed against tax laws, inequity, government and crony capitalism. He also targeted 'puppet' George W. Bush, murderous health care insurers and the pharmaceutical industry." His angry tirade concluded, "The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed." Not exactly the words of a supporter of capitalism.

Clearly, Stack was trying to get back at what he called "Big Brother IRS man," but his politics are rather muddy. That didn't stop Leftists from blaming the Tea Party movement. We saw it coming.

Time magazine, The Washington Post, New York Magazine and talkingheads at the cable networks immediately jumped on the anti-IRS theme, while ignoring Stack's slam of capitalism. Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post's Post Partisan blog, wrote, "[A]fter reading his 34-paragraph screed, I am struck by how his alienation is similar to that we're hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement." New York Magazine said that "a lot of his rhetoric could have been taken directly from a handwritten sign at a tea party rally."

One blogger at the popular Daily Kos Web site railed, "After months of threats on the United States government, and government institutions, the Anti-Government forces known as the teabaggers have struck with their first 911 [sic] inspired terrorist attack." Numerous comments on the Huffington Post blog likewise threw blame in the wrong direction.

Tea Partiers do not support communism, and they do support the Rule of Law. Stack's words and actions are the antithesis of the Tea Party movement's goals.
The Left, however, never lets facts get in the way of a good story.

Are You A non- Muslim?

Warfighting 101

Mark Alexander has a long piece today, but it is well worth the time it will take you to read it.
Here is the last section of his essay. I encourage you to make the jump and read the whole thing.

Afghanistan remains an ideal breeding ground for the active cadres of "Jihadistan," a borderless nation of Islamic extremists comprising al-Qa'ida and other Muslim terrorist groups around the world.

A borderless nation, indeed. The "Islamic World" of the Quran recognizes no political borders. Though orthodox Muslims (those who subscribe to the teachings of the "pre-Medina" Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder, large, well-funded sects within the Islamic world subscribe to the "post-Mecca" Quran and Hadiths (Mohammed's teachings). It is this latter group which calls for jihad, or "holy war," against all "the enemies of God."

For the record, these "enemies," or infidels, are all non-Muslims.

Are you a non-Muslim?

Jihadists, then, are characterized by the toxic Wahhabism of Osama bin Laden and his heretical ilk -- those who would remake the Muslim world in their own image of hatred, intolerance, death and destruction. In the words of bin Laden himself: "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us."

Does Barack Hussein Obama get the message?

Given his penchant for appeasement and for ill-advised withdrawal timelines from Iraq and Afghanistan, one would think not.

Moreover, the Obama administration's newly released quadrennial outline for national and homeland defense makes no mention of "Islam," "Islamic" or "Islamist," preferring instead to reference "violent extremism."

Obama's "Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism," John Brennan (a.k.a. "Terrorist Czar"), has deflected criticism of the quadrennial reports, and of Obama's re-warming of the Clinton model for treating terrorists as "criminals" rather than "enemy combatants."

"Politics should never get in the way of national security," says Brennan, who insists that Obama's detractors are "misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe." The thin-skinned Brennan has also charged that "politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qa'ida."

Obama's foreign policy is driven by nothing if not politics, and this includes his Afghanistan strategy. It's a strategy necessitated by his phony bravado during the 2008 presidential campaign -- a strategy with the ultimate aim of an easy political out.

Carnegie Endowment policy analyst Robert Kagan observes, "The new doctrine that seems to enjoy enormous cachet among the smart foreign policy set is: Fight wars until they get hard, then quit."

I prefer John Stuart Mill's assessment: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. ... A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

More Patriot Post Goodies

Re: The Left

"If you've been paying attention to the left-wing punditry these days, you may be under the impression that the nation's institutions are on the verge of collapse. Or that the rule of law is unraveling. Or maybe that this once-great nation is crippled and nearly beyond repair. You know why? Because the 40 percent (or so) political minority has far too much influence in Washington.

Don't you know? This minority, egged on by a howling mob of nitwits, is holding progress hostage using its revolting politics and parliamentary trickery. ...

President Barack Obama, (aka Dr Utopia) after his agenda had come to a halt, claimed democracy is a 'messy' process -- as if that were a bad thing. Actually, 'democracy' is not only messy but also immoral and unworkable.

The Founding Fathers saw that coming, as well. So we don't live under a system of simple majority rule for a reason, as most readers already know. The minority political party, luckily, has the ability to obstruct, nag, and filibuster the majority's agenda. Otherwise, those in absolute power would run wild -- or, in other words, you all would be living that Super Bowl Audi commercial by now. ... [T]oday's argument that the ruling party doesn't have enough power is a reflection of a nearly spiritual belief in the wonders of government, not democracy." --columnist David
Harsanyi

Patriot Post

The Last Word

"In lecturing us about blowing our money, The Great Ozbama displays breathtaking gall. Given that he is blowing trillions of our money, not his, and burying us in debt as no president in history, silence on the subject would seem more reasonable. To be nit-picky about it, since he is in citing trips to Vegas as particularly objectionable, I hold in my casino chip-calloused fingers a list procured from CanadaFreePress.com of Mrs. Obama's staff and their salaries. She reportedly has a staff of 22 assistants. Yes, I said twenty-two. (Previous First Ladies' dedicated staffs were in the single digits). Michelle's little army includes a Chief of Staff costing $172,000 a year; a Deputy Chief of Staff at $90,000; a Director of Policy and Projects at $140,000; a Director of Communications at $102,000; a Deputy Director of Scheduling at $62,000; two Social Secretaries -- mysteriously, one at $65,000, one at $64,000; an Associate Director of Correspondence at $45,000, an Assistant to the Social Secretary at $36,000, and more, in total consuming $6.3-million annually thus $25-million during her 4-year term. Not to mention a make-up artist and hair stylist. I have one assistant. Answer my own correspondence. Keep my own calendar. ... Mr. President, sir, if you are going to lecture me about blowing my money in Vegas or turning down my thermostat or inflating my tires, do you think you could reign in your wife's blowing of my money just a teeny bit?" --columnist Dan Kennedy

Too Good Not To Share-Especially the First and Last Entries

From the Patriot Post, formerly the Federalist Digest.
Thank You Mr Alexander


Upright
"The Left doesn't want to govern, it wants to rule.... The Left is not about principles. It is about itself. It is about power. Now that President Obama has been politically weakened, look for the mask to come back on. The words of sweet reason, the entreaties to 'make a deal,' and feigned affection will now make a surprise reappearance. When the Left cannot rule, it will try to govern. Until the next time." --columnist Richard Fernandez

"Republicans' objection to national health care could be more accurately portrayed as follows: Obama's plan to nationalize health care was a terrible idea because it would turn over one-sixth of the American economy to Washington bureaucrats, who would run the system as competently as the federal government runs everything else, from airport security to the post office to FEMA." --columnist Ann Coulter

"The fate of ObamaCare is starting to have something of the feel of a Greek tragedy. We are not superstitious, but [Rep. Jack] Murtha's death as the result of medical error at a government-run hospital is certainly an eerie coincidence." --Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto

"Today's tax system was shaped by sadists who were trying to be nice: Every wrinkle in the code was put there to benefit this or that interest. Since the 1986 tax simplification, the code has been recomplicated more than 14,000 times -- more than once a day." --columnist George Will

"Obama's budget points to a dismal future in which half of the country subsists on welfare while the other half receives a paycheck for processing welfare claims in the federal bureaucracy." --columnist Jeffrey Folks

"In the first post-primary Rasmussen survey in Illinois for the Senate seat briefly held by President Obama, the Republican Mark Kirk 'holds a modest 46% to 40% lead over Democrat Alexi Giannoulias.' How embarrassing, how debilitating, would it be if Democrats were to lose Obama's U.S. Senate seat?" --political analyst Rich Galen

"Americans rightly believe that we can build anything that needs building and fix anything that is broken. ....that we can do that by living out our nation's founding principles and values: constitutional government, respect for private property and life, a free market -- and the gumption of hard-working, inventive Americans." --columnist Tony Blankley

More From Mark Alexander

Insight
"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals... It does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government... It is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government." --philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

What Has Brown Done For Us?

I added the boldface to reinforce the statement.

From Patriot Post's "The Brief"

...Brown ran a great campaign, but good candidates lose uphill battles all the time in places like Massachusetts. And no, MS-NBC, this was not a Tip O'Neil 'all politics are local' referendum on potholes and such. Thanks to big government liberals, no politics are local anymore. Not even an obscure congressional district known as NY-23. Every single seat may now hold the key to Washington's ability to reach into the homes and wallets and lives of every American for any reason they deem necessary. And that's what this was about, with health care as the key issue but only one of many concerns about intrusive government." --columnist C. Edmund Wright

Warriors of Honor

Character: Lee and Jackson

"Let each man resolve to be victorious, and that the right of self-government, liberty, and peace shall find him a defender." --Robert E. Lee

"[M]y religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave." --Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson

Today we take a moment to remember the birth anniversaries of Robert E. Lee (Jan. 19) and Stonewall Jackson (Jan. 21), two of the greatest military commanders in American history. They also were great men of faith who gave their all (Jackson his life) for the cause of liberty and states' rights, which we at The Patriot hold so dear. Some may question our decision to honor men of the Confederate States of America, but we encourage those readers to consider our correction of the record. The honor we give these men has its roots in the founding of this great nation.

Mark Alexander notes in his essay,"Lincoln's Legacy at 200," that "the causal case for states' rights is most aptly demonstrated by the words and actions of Gen. Lee, who detested slavery and opposed secession. In 1860, however, Gen. Lee declined Lincoln's request that he take command of the Army of the Potomac, saying that his first allegiance was to his home state of Virginia: 'I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the army, and save in defense of my native state... I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword.'

He would, soon thereafter, take command of the Army of Northern Virginia, rallying his officers with these words: 'Let each man resolve to be victorious, and that the right of self-government, liberty, and peace
shall find him a defender.'"