Of Course, He's Turning In His Grave

March 23, 1775
Give me liberty...

Patrick Henry delivered his famous "give me liberty or give me death!" oration in St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia on this day. The famous phrase is in part derived from the play, Cato, A Tragedy, which was well-known to all the founding fathers.

Personal Note:
I used to help out a friend who had a greenhouse and supplied area churches with Easter Lilies. One of my drops was St John's Church. My best friend Billy and I stood in the church one day after delivering the shipment of lilies. The feeling was indescribable. Knowing I was standing in the very spot Patrick Henry stood and told everyone it was time to walk the walk gave me goose bumps. I could almost see the members, hear Mr Henry's voice. If you're ever in Richmond and have the time, I assure you, it's worth your time.

Virginia Could Be the First to Reinforce Original Intent

and that would only be fitting. We are the birthplace of individual freedom and limited government. From the Religious Freedom Act to Patrick Henry's speech, Viriginians have stood against intrusive and restrictive actions by government.

Ruling expected Monday on Virginia health care suit

Many observers believe that U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson, who sits in Richmond, may be the first judge to strike down the law.

If he does, he would rule that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce with a requirement in that law that individuals obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine.

The suit was filed in March by Virginia Attorney Gen. Ken T. Cuccinelli II (R), who said he was defending a new state statute that made it illegal to require individuals to have health insurance. It is separate from a case filed jointly by 20 other states in Florida. A judge will hear oral arguments in that case on Thursday.

Hudson's staff says he is expected to file his ruling on the case midday Monday. His decision will almost certainly be appealed. The constitutionality of the law will ultimately be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Honorable Henry Hudson should write a very short brief, saying, in essence:
"The Healthcare Law is trash. You boys have to scrap it now and start over."

Obamacare Heads to Court

While the new Congress deliberates over ways to repeal or defund the Obama Administration’s “healthcare reform” law, twenty states and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), have filed suit in federal court arguing that the law is unconstitutional and should be struck down immediately. This is the largest of several legal challenges to Obamacare across the country.

snip/

The Constitution does not allow Congress to force Americans to purchase a product solely because they are alive and the federal government’s claim of such authority contradicts more than two hundred years of Supreme Court precedent. Yet the individual mandate, which would obligate private citizens to obtain health insurance whether they want it or not, does just that.

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

Where are the the men like him today? I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

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

Terry McAuliffe and Global Crossing

You should think very hard about allowing a Clintonista anywhere near the Governor's Mansion.

Investment questions dog McAuliffe in Va. gov race

In a governor's race that's all about jobs, Terry McAuliffe is facing questions about huge profits he made from a company that collapsed two years later, leaving 10,000 people unemployed.

The multimillionaire businessman and former Democratic National Committee chairman, a close friend of Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, is pledging to use his business savvy to land more jobs for his state than any of his fellow governors.
But since he entered the race in January, he's been dogged by questions about his investments in telecom giant Global Crossing. He faces two opponents in a June 9 primary.

In 1997, McAuliffe sank $100,000 into the Beverly Hills, Calif.-based startup's bold plan to link North America and Europe with a trans-Atlantic fiber optic cable, a super-fast conduit for voice, video and digital data.

"When I invested in Global Crossing, understand that it was a very risky deal," McAuliffe said in an Associated Press interview about his finances. His return was $8.1 million, mostly on the sale of 176,017 shares in 1999, the year Global Crossing stock peaked beyond $60 a share.

He could have made much more _ closer to the $18 million in some published reports _ had he sold all of his shares in 1999. Stock transaction records he provided to the AP show his last shares were sold in January 2002, after the company's stock had plunged to 14 cents per share. And, as McAuliffe notes, he was never a board member or officer of the company.

When Global Crossing filed for bankruptcy protection that year, investors lost $54 billion and 10,000 employees lost jobs. Even after 2008's spectacular Wall Street failures, Global Crossing's bankruptcy still ranks among the largest in U.S. history.
McAuliffe's most bitter primary rival is pounding him on it. State House Democratic Caucus leader Brian J. Moran's only television ad, which debuted last week, accuses McAuliffe of "working insider deals for himself."

Moran maintains the jobs lost at Global Crossing counter McAuliffe's claims that he can generate jobs for Virginia.

Business savvy my ass. Just another greedy, heartless, blood-sucking dhimmicrat who will do more damage to Virginia's economy than Timmy ever thought about doing.