Fourth of July, 2016

One of the many things about American History that has always fascinated me is Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both passing away on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1826. James Monroe, who was the last of the founders to be President, passed away exactly five years later on July 4, 1831. People are free to draw their own opinions but it cannot be denied it is rather peculiar.

With the approaching 240th Anniversary of our Nation’s Declaration of Independence, it may be more important now than ever to utilize it’s true purpose. To reaccess our own principles, and if need be, to re-align ourselves with those outlined in that great charter.

The Declaration began the Revolutionary War, and our Constitution is what has held that Union together for the past 225 years through thick and thin. They belong together. To separate those two great documents from each other only serves to remove Natural Law from our consciousness. Without an understanding of Natural Law, from which our Natural Rights are derived, the way is paved for Sophistry to take hold with Despotism quickly ensuing. Another name for it is Legalism, where the letter of the law is authoritative over the law’s spirit. Scripture teaches otherwise: for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor 3). Which is why it is paramount we use Original Intent to interpret our Founding Documents.

Out of mercy, here is but a short passage from a contrary opinion given by Woodrow Wilson during one of his parasitic presidential campaign speechs in 1912:

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop.

All that progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when “development,” “evolution,” is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.

Some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence, signed in Philadelphia, July 4th, 1776. Their bosoms swell against George III, but they have no consciousness of the war for freedom that is going on today.

The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day.

Woodrow Wilson admits that our country was founded on, and our Constitution is based upon, a Newtonian worldview. A scientific view based in reductionism, determinism, materialism, and a reflection-correspondence view of knowledge. Yet he repeatedly rejects viewing the Constitution through that lens in favor of what he calls Darwinian Theory, i.e. Newtonian Christian Monotheism Vs. Darwinian Evolutionist Relativism.

Fourteen years later, a different U.S. President by the name of Calvin Coolidge addressed Wilson’s subversive line of thinking during the Declaration’s 150th Anniversary.

We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. … It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the fourth day of July.

It is not so much, then, for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic ofevents have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate applicationof the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great dealof progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

Long before Coolidge, another man at a previous Fourth of July celebration also offered up words of great wisdom. Which if heeded would have prevented subversive amendments like the 16th and 17th from ever being ratified. May his words this time help prevent the new bevy of subversive amendments being proposed today by those fallaciously advocating a Article V Constitutional Convention under the guise of a limited Convention of the States.

The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow, is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.

Nor are great and striking alterations alone to be shunned. A succession of small changes, a perpetual tampering with minute parts, steal away the breath though they leave the body; for it is true that a government may lose all its real character, its genius and its temper, without losing its appearance. You may have a despotism under the name ofa republic. You may look on a government and see it possess all the external essential modes of freedom, and yet see nothing of the essence, the vitality, of freedom in it: just as you may behold Washington or Franklin in wax-work; the form is perfect, but the spirit, the life, is not there.

If an angel should be winged from Heaven, on an errand of mercy to our country, the first accents that would glow on his lips would be, Beware! be cautious! you have everything to lose; you have nothing to gain. We live under the only government that ever existed which was framed by the unrestrained and deliberate consultations of the people. Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once gone, might leave a void, to be filled, for ages, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism. ~Daniel Webster, Fourth of July Oration (1802)

So let us remember on this Fourth Day of July why some men were willing to sacrifice their life, liberty, and fortunes to secure a nation such as ours, to remember the blessings we ourselves have reaped because of their willingness to sacrifice, and to give God reason once again to bless America for posterity’s sake.

May God bless those who are willing to promote and stand in defense of the noble principles found within our Declaration and Constitution. And in closing, I will impart this final thought:

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. ~Benjamin Franklin, at the signing ofthe Declaration of Independence

Trump 2016: Because We Are All Progressive Socialists Now

It is with a sad heart I watch people that I know who refer to themselves as: republicans, conservatives, constitutionalists, patriots, and Christians; plunge over the precipice to embrace what they purport to abhor. It is a major contradiction that cannot be ignored, that is, if you believe in such a thing as objective truth.

As no man can serve two masters, no man can pursue two contrary interests . . . ~Algernon Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government (1698)

Donald Trump would have us believe that he is pro-second amendment. Unfortunately his Republican supporters, who should know better, eagerly devour and regurgitate without question the insipid food he lays out before them. The particular feast in question is Donald J. Trump’s official paper. These Republicans proclaim it should clear the air of any ambiguity his detractors may have. Well let us see if that holds true or not.

Trump starts off by declaring: The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period. Well if it is “Period“, then why did Donald Trump ever want to impose a gun ban on certain firearms in the first place?

Later in his paper, Trump states: Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. If anyone should know it would be Donald Trump since he falls under his own definition of an “opponent of gun rights”.

Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record. ~Donald J. Trump, The America We Deserve (2000)

Going back to Donald’s official paper, he makes it known he is still for waiting periods while the federal government conducts background checks. Doesn’t that potentially put people’s lives at risk to wait for the government’s approval to ably defend one’s self? It contradicts Donald’s own assertion of the Second Amendment being about plain and simple self-defense. And where does the Constitution even permit the government to do such a thing?

So apparently “Period” doesn’t mean period in Donald’s postmodern dictionary and the federal government may infringe on our unalienable rights after all.

No matter what venue Donald attempts to communicate in, he consistently contradicts what he would like us to believe is his core principles. Yet his supporters have a remarkable capacity for dismissing facts or never even hearing about them.

Another serious red-flag to be found in Trump’s official musings:

We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop.

Perhaps Donald J. Trump should be running for mayor of one of those cities instead of President then. Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to usurp a State’s sovereignty for violent crimes and drugs? Those are State crimes, not federal crimes. Obviously the Donald is not for State’s rights at all, but for a centralized despotic federal government. To which there is plenty of more evidence to support that accusation if need be.

One final thought concerning Donald’s official position on the 2nd Amendment, to which he literally uses to trample over the 10th. Why is the Donald talking about the federal government fixing the mental healthcare system? Again, where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to make any laws concerning the mental or physical health of the States?

With Donald J. Trump not being grounded in natural law, he continues to muddy not only his own water, but also that of the supreme law of the land. Trump’s consistent inconsistencies shows his thinking to be dangerously unstable and unsound, which renders him unfit to be trusted with the liberties and laws of this land.

One must wonder, are Trump’s Republican supporters really republican? or are they just extremely lousy at discernment and applying principles?

One thing is for certain, they are rash and reckless in their pursuit of vengeance on the Republican Establishment they helped elect. Funny how nationalists always need scapegoats to persecute.

The generation which commences a revolution rarely complete it. Habituated from their infancy to passive submission of body and mind to their kings and priests, they are not qualified when called on to think and provide for themselves; and their inexperience, their ignorance and bigotry make them instruments often in the hands of the Bonapartes and Iturbides to defeat their own rights and purposes. ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams (1823)

On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants. ~Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #1 (October 27, 1787)

Update June 16, 2016

 

New information has been collected to paint a more graphic picture of the methods the elitist factions are using to subvert our natural rights.

‘The Law To Fix Mental Health Care Blasted As Anti Liberty’ is concerning H.R. 2646, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act.

Once given a psychiatric label, it is possible to lose all your rights and freedoms. You can be involuntarily hospitalized and given psychotropic drugs or ECT against your will.

Or lose your right to keep and bear arms in defense of your life, liberty, and property. Is it a coincidence to find Donald Trump advocating to “Fix Our Broken Mental Health System” in his official paper on the 2nd Amendment where he tries convincing everyone that he now supports the 2nd Amendment indubitably?

Let’s be clear about this. Our mental health system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Too many politicians have ignored this problem for too long. ~Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

‘Final Rules Disclosed For How Social Security Admin Plans To Disarm Beneficiaries’ is about implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. Which was discovered by the National Rifle Association. So why has the NRA endorsed Donald Trump?

‘Report: Trump And NRA ‘Essentially In Agreement’ On No-Fly List’

The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. ~NRA Statement on Terror Watchlists (June 15, 2016)

So if the government wants to violate someone’s or some group’s rights without due process, all they have to do is put them on the Terror Watchlist and the NRA is okay with it. But what I would like to know is, why are these “terrorists” being allowed to walk freely instead of being convicted in a court of law?

Funny how the solution is always to infringe on our fundamental rights.

‘A Serious Question For The NRA’

As regular readers of my commentaries know, from time to time I have written about the National Rifle Association’s curious misreading of the Second Amendment—to wit, that the Amendment’s first thirteen words (“[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) have no significance with respect to the interpretation and application of the Amendment’s last fourteen words (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”). According to the NRA, the Second Amendment secures “the individual right to keep and bear arms”, to which “[a] well regulated Militia” is irrelevant.

Let’s recap. Donald J Trump

  1. is for unconstitutional waiting periods and background checks (NICS);
  2. wants an unconstitutional mental health system where the government can remove our rights without due process;
  3. and is dancing around the idea of removing the rights of Americans if the government puts them on the Terror Watchlist.

So when Hillary welcomes Trump as an ally in gun-control measures, for once I believe her. Also, I am forced to assume the NRA revealed the above information to establish credibility with the pro-2nd Amendment population. As Marcus Cicero aptly phrased it:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.

Exploring The Shallow Depths of Sophistry

This is a partial examination of Dr. Ed Berry’s latest article titled, Donald Trump Will Be Our Next President.

It’s a strong possibility that Donald Trump could become our next president, so there’s not much sense in arguing over that aspect of Dr. Berry’s premature assertion. What bothers me is the good doctor’s unfounded assertions and double standards in his zealous promotion of the candidate of his choice. So let’s begin to analyze the more important aspects of Dr. Berry’s sophistry, and start where he states:

“Trump will return the power back to the American people where it belongs. As more Americans catch on to this fact, they will support Donald Trump.”

It’s a fact Trump will return power back to the American people? btw, wasn’t “power to the people” the mantra of the 60’s radical groups protesting da man?

Of course the author didn’t bother to provide anything to substantiate his bold assertion, but I can provide some to the contrary.

One of the first things I’d do in terms of executive order, if I win, will be to sign a strong, strong statement that would go out to the country, out to the world, anybody killing a police man, a police woman, a police officer, anybody killing a police officer, the death penalty is going to happen. ~Donald Trump in New Hampshire (12/10/2015)

For those who are illiterate of the enumerated powers of the Constitution, the President has no authority to order the Judiciary, whether federal or state, to sentence anyone to the death penalty. The killing of a police officer is a local and state level crime. So like Obama, Trump has no problem with unconstitutional executive orders, as long as he agrees with them. Which is the definition of a Despot.

As I discussed in a previous article exposing Donald Trump’s erroneous ideology, Trump is an advocate of the subversive doctrine called Judicial Supremacy.

You have to go with it [same-sex marriage]. The decision’s been made, and that is the law of the land. ~Donald Trump on Supreme Court Decision, MSNBC Morning Joe (Sept. 4, 2015)

So according to Donald Trump, not only can the Supreme Court write law, they can write laws contrary to the enumerated powers granted to the Congress who does write the laws.

Article VI, second paragraph of US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…

Alexander Hamilton explains the principle of Article VI in Federalist #78.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

So when comparing Trump’s constitutional interpretation of laws to Original Intent, clearly it’s not a fact that “Trump will return power to the American people”. As if we need some government official to return power that was never rightfully theirs. What we need is for the American people to understand the principles of the Constitution so they can discern and elect public servants who have the fortitude to uphold and defend them in the most turbulent storms.

Dr. Berry in his pragmatic quest to win elections at any cost, goes on to declare: “Trump brings Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who had given up on the Republican Party.”

Considering Donald Trump doesn’t represent republican principles, the Republicans Trump brings are Dupes and Republicans In Name Only. Dr. Berry is promoting the same Big Tent Philosophy the GOPe does which has led to the current predicament of the Republican Party standing for nothing. Both the GOPe and Dr. Berry take the conservative base for granted and seek to appease Democrats for votes. Ronald Reagan didn’t pander to Democrats, he won them over by giving a strong uncompromising case for conservatism that contrasted with the self-refuting principles of the Democrat Party.

Yet Dr. Berry has the gall to declare anyone who doesn’t vote for Donald Trump a Democrat. In his vitriolic nonsense, Dr. Berry uses the “Editorial We” when declaring, “It does not matter who you claim you are. We judge you by the results of your actions. If your actions help elect Hillary, you are a Democrat.”

Is Dr. Berry under some delusion that constitutionalists and conservatives care if some political hacks calls them Democrats, all because they won’t vote for his progressive candidate?

Apparently so because he thinks there are only two sides in America, either being for or against Donald Trump. Talk about an extremely myopic view…

Dr. Berry moves on to rightfully question Ted Cruz’s Dominionist ties, Cruz supports a pastor who tells you to kill gays.”

But it’s pot calling kettle black in the case of Donald Trump. It’s interesting that a highly educated Trump supporter would bring up the religion of another candidate, when Trump has just as many problems, e.g. the minister who Donald Trump still praises to this day, Norman Peale.

In 1984 Norman Vincent Peale was interviewed on the Phil Donahue program, said, “It’s not necessary to be born again. You have your way to God; I have mine. I found eternal peace in a Shinto shrine …I’ve been to Shinto shrines, and God is everywhere:” Shocked by this, Phil Donahue responded, “But you’re a Christian minister; you’re supposed to tell me that Christ is the way and the truth and the life, aren’t you?” Peale replied, “Christ is one of the ways. God is everywhere. (Christian News, May 12, 1997, 11.)

But I doubt that Dr. Berry would have a problem with that. Just over a month ago, he was promoting Joseph Campbell’s nonsense ‘The Power of the Myth’ and calling Christian Fundamentalists dangerous kooks.  Despite the name calling, which only exposes his own intellectual dishonesty, Dr. Berry is correct in this aspect, a biblical worldview is dangerous to his worldview. And so it should come as no surprise that the opposite holds true as well, his erroneous worldview is dangerous to the Christian worldview but for different reasons. One view is true and exposes the other as false, and in turn, the false view must attack its opposite, whenever possible, for the sake of its own unjustified existence.

For those who don’t know about Joseph Campbell, here is a sample of his teachings.

The virtues of the past are the vices of today. And many of what were thought to be the vices of the past are the necessities of today. The moral order has to catch up with the moral necessities of actual life in time, here and now. And that is what we are not doing. The old-time religion belongs to another age, another people, another set of human values, another universe. (1988 PBS documentary, Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth)

Interesting, especially when compared to the immutable word of God.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Romans 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

“Cruz’s VCEs claim they are “constitutionalists.” Yet they support Cruz who is not a “natural born citizen.”

Back in December of 2015, Dr. Berry made the declaration here that Cruz and Rubio are eligible by citing the fallacious works of Katyal and Clement, and Maskell; while dismissing Mario Apuzzo’s. Berry points out that Mario Apuzzo’s article doesn’t address the papers of the other three. While Apuzzo doesn’t in the paper Berry chose to cite, Apuzzo had previously addressed Katyal and Clement paper at his blog here. Dr. Berry ends his paper by challenging anyone to rebuke Jack Maskell’s paper and bets that they can’t. Well Mario Apuzzo already did that here, long before Dr. Berry contemplated masking his irrational opinions as logic on the subject.

So to summarize what Berry did, he first works to convince Americans that Ted Cruz is eligible, then has the audacity to question their constitutionalism after they believe him. And while doing so, he continues in his own constitutional ignorance: To resolve the “natural born citizen” issue, elect Donald Trump. He will ask Congress to define “natural born citizen.”

Congress has no authority to define “natural born Citizen”. If they did, they could redefine every word in the Constitution and thus bypass the amendment process altogether.

And finally, we arrive to address Dr. Berry’s conclusions so I can end this analysis of his unsound political sagacity

Americans will vote for Donald Trump.

Yes, when more than one American votes for Donald Trump it becomes plural. So what? Americans will also vote for Hillary Clinton and other candidates.

Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who can and will win the presidency.

If Donald Trump will win the presidency, then why the need for all the fallacious propaganda to support him, or is that the only way he can?

He is the only candidate with the necessary and proven CEO experience to run American and to save our economy.

Governing and CEO experience is apples and oranges, irrelevant point.

Trump will win the final election against Hillary by a landslide.

Berry is repeating his second talking point, redundant.

He will choose the best people for his cabinet and advisers. He already has Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Carl Icahn, Rudy Giuliani, and other superstars on his team.

Progressives like Ben Carson, Chris Christie, and Rudy Giuliani are the best people?

Trump will choose the best Generals and Admirals. Trump will not micromanage how they do their job.

Trump will choose the best science adviser. I hope Trump contacts Princeton Professor of Physics Will Happer.

Trump WILL do this, Trump WILL do that. Berry sure makes a lot of truth statements like he speaks directly for Trump and it’s guaranteed. Funny how as soon as Berry gets done telling us that Trump WILL choose the best science adviser, he tells us how he hopes Trump will contact Will Happer. If Trump WILL choose the best, why does Berry  have to “hope”?

Trump will not take orders from the CFR. Trump will audit the Fed. Trump will build America’s economy. We need a strong economy to make America great again.

Yes, more of the Trump will do this and that rhetoric. But in the March 3 Republican debate, Trump was asked if he could reveal two or three names that he trusts for national security.

I think Richard Haass is excellent. I have a lot of respect for him. I think General Keane is excellent. I think that there are — I like Colonel Jacobs very much. I see him. I know him. I have many people that I think are really excellent but in the end it’s going to be my decision.

Richard Haass is in his 13th year as president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and both General Keane and Colonel Jacobs are CFR members.

On March 21, 2016 Donald Trump revealed another list of Foreign Policy advisers and named Carter Page, who is both CFR and Council of National Policy. So while Trump may not “take their orders”, it’s clear he is seeking their council.

Unfortunately Ed Berry displays the typical shortsightedness of a Donald Trump supporter, predominately all rhetoric with little to no actual substance. The success of Trump’s campaign is a testament to the validity of Screwtape’s advice to his young inexperienced nephew, Wormwood:

“[M]an has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily “true” or “false,” but as “academic” or “practical,” “outworn” or “contemporary,” “conventional” or “ruthless.” Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don’t waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong or stark or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That’s the sort of thing he cares about. ~C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

As well as a testament to George Orwell’s description of a nationalist:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them. There is almost no kind of outrage — torture, imprisonment without trial, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral color when it is committed by ‘our’ side. The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

For a nation of Liberty, those directions only lead down, not up.​ Neither Trump or Berry know how to make America great again because they don’t know what made us great to begin with. If we expect to be great again in this or the next generation, it begins by returning to first principles now, not with empowering a usurper of a different stripe and then promising to return to first principles tomorrow. From my understanding of Scripture, God does not bestow good nations on the credit of promises to be good people later.

For those who wish to ignore the principles of a republican form of government, and proceed with continually electing the lesser of two evils, this is what is in store for you.

When a nation of Liberty is dying, it naturally transgress into a state of anarchy. But once the people begin experiencing the horrors of lawlessness, they always seek a strong leader who promises to restore law and order to make things great again. Yet the kind of person who promises such things is usually never satisfied in just stopping there. And that’s when we shift into the next phase, a state of tyranny. History provides no examples of a people immediately deposing the tyrant and returning to Liberty, by that time the people have already debased themselves. It’s only after generations of abuse that they finally reclaim their unalienable rights granted by God, fight a bloody revolutionary war, and live as freemen.

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. ~Hosea 4

 

 

 

 

 

2016 Presidential Elections, part II

For Part I

Donald Trump

One of the many things we are told about Donald Trump is how the Establishment is scared of him. The saying: out of the frying pan and into the fire,  best defines those who are so eager to vote for Donald “the non-Globalist” Trump over the Establishment candidates. The funny thing is; even if Trump isn’t invited to the Establishment’s cocktail parties, he’s still a progressive who will continue destroying the Constitution as if he were. And in reality, Trump does go to the Establishment’s fundraising parties and donates to them, just ask Bill and Hillary Clinton.

In the second movie of the Batman Trilogy, ‘The Dark Knight’, the organized criminals were scared of a certain joker too, even though he was one of them. They were scared because he was both unpredictable and uncontrollable. Which is what I contend is the only reason the Establishment is scared of Trump and would prefer a “safer” candidate. That is, if they are truly scared of him.

The enemy of my enemy is not a friend. Republicans will be sorry for adopting that erroneous principle and electing Donald Trump. Despite his unsubstantiated rhetoric of being a conservative Republican, Donald is a pragmatist who will say whatever is necessary to get what he wants.

“In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat,” Trump told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in a 2004 interview. “It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn’t be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats. …But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we’ve had some pretty bad disaster under the Republicans.”

But as the old line of defense goes, that was back in 2004 and Donald has “seen the light!”

Very well then, let go back to five months ago, back to just September of 2015 to observe Donald’s “new found beliefs”.

“You have to go with it [same-sex marriage]. The decision’s been made, and that is the law of the land,”~Donald Trump on Supreme Court Decision, MSNBC Morning Joe (Sept. 4, 2015)

So according to Donald Trump, not only can the Supreme Court write law, they can write laws contrary to the enumerated powers granted to the Congress who does write the laws. Remember, Donald is supposedly against same-sex marriage, so if he is going to “go with it,” he will go along with any unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings.

That false and subversive doctrine is called Judicial Supremacy and is a result of interpreting the Constitution as a living breathing document, instead of with Original Intent. Donald can make all the campaign promises he wants, but he has let it be known it’s the Supreme Court who ultimately calls all the shots in his administration.

Or is Donald actually for same-sex marriages, simply under a different name?

I do favor a very strong domestic-partnership law that guarantees gay people the same legal protection and rights as married people. I think it’s important for gay couples who are committed to each other to not be hassled when it comes to inheritance, insurance benefits, and other simple every day rights. ~Donald Trump, The Advocate, page 24 (Feb 15, 2000)

In the same interview, Donald also professes his strong support for both homosexuals in the military and “hate-crime” legislation.

During the first Republican Debate in August 2015, Trump claimed he was no longer for Universal Healthcare. His reasoning was that it would no longer work here, but he never gave a reason as to why it would have worked here sixteen years ago and what has changed where it wouldn’t now. Well it only took about a month before Donald decided it would work again. That’s what Despots do, they ignore the laws and constitutions and do what they feel is best.

Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.

Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of. How? How?

Trump: They’re going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably—

Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?

Trump: —the government’s gonna pay for it. But we’re going to save so much money on the other side.

Who is this “We” who will save so much money, Donald Trump’s corporations?

There is no Repeal and Replace, there is only Repeal. Any Republican candidate who talks of replacing ObamaCare with another unconstitutional healthcare program is part of the problem. Despite the unconstitutionality of it all, what sort of person would want a federal government involved in their healthcare in the first place?

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. ~James Madison, The Federalist #45 (1788)

Donald also believes the vile organization Planned Parenthood does good work and would continue funding it through the federal government, as long as they supposedly stop doing abortions.

Doesn’t the Constitution have a say on what Congress can and cannot spend the taxpayers money on?

Obviously not in Donald Trump’s pragmatic world. In a recent article proclaiming Trump a strict constitutionalist, the dubious author cites Trump:

Trump himself has said, “Common sense tell us that the two basic principles of governing should work anywhere they are applied. First: Get government out of activities it can’t do well. (A list of thing government doesn’t do well is a very long list.) Second: Get government back in the business of providing for public convenience (transportation, public works) and safety (police and firefighters), and make sure it does so efficiently. Then judge its efforts by visible, definable results and fine-tune, as needed.”

Common sense? That’s nonsense and would place us under a despotic central government! And I hope Trump’s second basic principle of governing wasn’t aimed at the federal government, since it rightfully has no authority for most of his wish list. As to Trump’s so-called first basic principle,  James Madison argued against a similar proposition under a different pretense during the Ratification Debates:

Let the dangers which this system is supposed to be replete with be clearly pointed out: if any dangerous and unnecessary powers be given to the general legislature, let them be plainly demonstrated, and let us not rest satisfied with general assertions of danger, without examination. If powers be necessary, apparent danger is not a sufficient reason against conceding them. . . .” ~James Madison, Virginia Ratification Convention (1788)

If powers be necessary, whether government doesn’t do them well is not sufficient reason against conceding them.

Donald Trump has no regard for the ‘supreme law of the land’ unless it can be used to his advantage. To those who have eyes to see, he has shown himself to be another wannabe tinpot Despot. How is he any different than Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio?

It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go…. In questions of power, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ~Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution of 1798

With all the above, it certainly makes sense why Trump would think Mark Levin’s fallacious and erroneous book calling for a constitutional convention is a “truly great and important book”.

Everything that has been covered thus far should stop any REPUBLICAN dead in their tracks from supporting Donald Trump. With his convoluted and self-refuting political ideology exposed, it’s time to take a little closer look at his religious ideology, which unfortunately is just as bad.

Whenever anyone questions Trump for his non-Christian antics, even though he proudly presents himself as a Presbyterian Christian, they are accused of being politically correct. Political incorrectness has now become the politically correct in the Republican Party. Why are so many Christians willing to embrace Donald Trump’s vices and disregard the teachings of their Lord and Savior, e.g. The Sermon on the Mount?

As Scripture also teaches, and as Noah Webster put it so eloquently:

When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. ~Noah Webster, History of the United States (1832)

In a July of 2015 interview, Anderson Cooper of CNN asked Trump about his then recent statement:

“I try and lead a life where I don’t have to ask God for forgiveness,” Trump said. “Why do I have to ask for forgiveness if you’re not making mistakes? I work hard, I’m an honorable person.” Trump added that while he thinks “repenting is terrific,” he described asking for forgiveness in the holy Christian sacrament of communion. “When I drink my little wine — which is about the only wine I drink — and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness,” Trump said.

Does that sound like a man who will rule in fear of God? Both Romans 3:10-18 and Isaiah 29:13 instantly come to my mind.

None of that should come as a surprise if one knows who Trump’s “great” minister Norman Peale really was.

In 1984 Norman Vincent Peale was interviewed on the Phil Donahue program, said, “It’s not necessary to be born again. You have your way to God; I have mine. I found eternal peace in a Shinto shrine …I’ve been to Shinto shrines, and God is everywhere:” Shocked by this, Phil Donahue responded, “But you’re a Christian minister; you’re supposed to tell me that Christ is the way and the truth and the life, aren’t you?” Peale replied, “Christ is one of the ways. God is everywhere. (Christian News, May 12, 1997, 11.)

I wonder if Trump was like Obama and always missed those revealing sermons… or is it okay to pervert the inerrant word of God one way but not the other?

For a better understanding of Norman Peale’s false teachings, see The Berean Call and Dave Hunt’s book, ‘The Seduction of Christianity‘.

The only way to make America great again is to restore our lost principles, in both government and ourselves. How does Donald do that when he doesn’t comprehend those principles and naturally operates under foreign ones?

In free states, where the body of the people have the supreme power securely in their own hands, and must ultimately be resorted to on all great matters,  if there be a general corruption of manners, there can be nothing but confusion. So true is this, that civil liberty cannot be long preserved without virtue. A monarchy may subsist for ages, and be better or worse under a good or bad prince. But a republic once equally poised, must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty, and by some tumultuous revolution, either return to its first principles, or assume a more unhappy form. ~John Witherspoon

 

 

2016 Presidential Elections

For whom it may concern and for what it’s worth:

After carefully reviewing each of the Republican Party’s candidates, I have determined that none of them will do anything to stop the inevitable train wreck that is about to befall our nation. Therefore, I will neither endorse or give my vote to the Republican Party, who has betrayed the Constitution once again. Not one of them represents my principles, to which I base on Scripture and our Founding Principles.

If the American people are set on this path, I will not join in their downward spiral with the Democrats, while they chase each other around the toilet bowl. My vote, nay, my stamp of approval will not be given in these matters. The glory of destroying this once Great Nation is to them and them alone, I will have no part of it.

Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office, as in England, to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man. But where the principle of difference is as substantial, and as strongly pronounced as between the republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part, and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided. ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Branch Giles (1795)

With that said, I don’t have much to say about the discombobulated election process itself right now, other than its similarity to Professional Wrestling and how far we’ve strayed from the 12th Amendment… but  I do have plenty to say about the wolves in sheep’s clothing who are seeking the highest office in the land. These wolves correctly anticipate republicans to faithfully honor the Republican Party every election cycle by giving their votes to whoever the Republican nominee is. Gone is all regard for how corrupt the nominee actually is, as the voters methodically circle the wagons around their new found political messiah(s). All because of  a reactionary response to the possibility of a Democrat winning. A vicious cycle that must be broken if we are ever to elect true patriotic statesmen to government again, ones who will actually honor their oath to:

Presidential Oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

For Congress , federal Judges, Military etc:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The oaths are not to Party or Faction or Individual, but to the Constitution. Which is why Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed. ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Priestley (1802)

So let us put away our partisan glasses and examine the candidates’ principles, as well as our own, through the lens of the Constitution.

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a wandering Cuban father and supposedly American Citizen mother. Despite the fallacious and erroneous arguments of those claiming that only one citizen parent is needed to create a natural born Citizen, new evidence had been found which closes the book on Ted Cruz’s eligibility.

It’s a fact that Ted was given Canadian citizenship upon his birth (1970) in Canada. But Canada didn’t recognize dual citizenship until 1977, which would mean Ted’s parents conscientiously made a choice and chose Canadian citizenship over American citizenship for him.

If the above is false, then why hasn’t Ted Cruz produced his U.S. Consular Report of Birth Abroad that his mother was required to obtain in order confer her U.S. Citizenship unto him?

It appears the Cruz family were planning on staying in Canada. Unfortunately, things took a turn for the worse when Raphael Cruz abandoned his wife and child in Canada, which caused them to return to the United States. Apparently everyone just assumed the little Canadian at birth automatically followed his mother’s citizenship status, which allowed Teddy to slip through the cracks all these years.

In defending himself as a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, Cruz has publicly hung himself. Cruz has stated he has never been naturalized, which he claims is proof of him being a U.S. natural born Citizen. If Ted Cruz has never been naturalized, that would mean he is an illegal alien who is currently holding one of Texas’ U.S. Senate seats illegally.

Since that disqualifies Ted Cruz on the spot, there is no need for me to point out his contradictions of being a strict constituionalist and conservative. The same can be said for Marco Rubio.

Marco Rubio

Neither one of Rubio’s parents were U.S. Citizens at the time of his birth. He was wrongly granted citizenship from a erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Until Rubio’s parents naturalized, they were still subject to the jurisdictions of Cuba, not the United States. Hence, Rubio is also not a natural born Citizen as required by the Constitution.

How did we get to this point? Because for decades, the American people have continually shrugged off the responsibility and duties of self-governance and let the wolves they elect to government decide all legal and moral matters for them. This must stop at once if we are ever to regain our Liberty.

I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy. ~Daniel Webster

Part II: Donald Trump

Liberty?

The word “Liberty” is often used in political rhetoric, and given the state of our Union,  I wonder how many of us actually understand this object we all claim to desire. Believe it or not, not everyone in America is for true Liberty. History is replete with people and rulers who despise the actual Spirit of Liberty, and unfortunately, that lawless spirit is still among us. In choosing our public servants, we must discern between those who use the charming sound of Liberty for their own agendas, and with those who speak and act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty (James 2).

Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

If our Liberty is under attack; we certainly can’t defend it if we don’t know what’s being attacked… we won’t even know how or when it’s being attacked.  So I’d like to share a collection of enlightening excerpts concerning this important subject.

The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable names—liberty and tyranny.

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. ~Abraham Lincoln, speech at a Sanitary Fair in Baltimore, MD (April 18th, 1864)

But Liberty is not the absolute freedom to do as we please, otherwise it would fall under the name – anarchy, which soon gives way to tyranny.

But, says he [Filmer], They do not remember that the desire of liberty was the first cause of the fall of man: and I desire it may not be forgotten, that the liberty asserted is not a licentiousness of doing what is pleasing to everyone against the command of God; but an exemption from all human laws, to which they have not given their assent. ~Algernon Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government

Which is confirmed by Scripture:

1 Corinthians 8:9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.

James 1:25 But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.

The above Scripture can also be seen as the roots in James Wilson’s writings on Liberty.

But law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge. The same course of study, properly directed, will lead us to the knowledge of both. Indeed, neither of them can be known, because neither of them can exist, without the other. Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness. ~James Wilson, Of the Study of Law in the United States

With all the above, it should be plain to see what happens when we stray in one direction or the other from the incorruptible Source that makes Liberty possible. It is to Him we must return and submit ourselves to if there is any hope in restoring our nation of Liberty. All other means are either useless or a new evil.

I’ll close with the entirety of Judge Learned Hand’s Spirit of Liberty for further edification. It was delivered in 1944.

We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion. Some of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption; the rest have come from those who did the same. For this reason we have some right to consider ourselves a picked group, a group of those who had the courage to break from the past and brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange land. What was the object that nerved us, or those who went before us, to this choice? We sought liberty; freedom from oppression, freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This we then sought; this we now believe that we are by way of winning. What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.

What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned but never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest. And now in that spirit, that spirit of an America which has never been, and which may never be; nay, which never will be except as the conscience and courage of Americans create it; yet in the spirit of that America which lies hidden in some form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America I ask you to rise and with me pledge our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country.

Two Ways Our Natural Rights Are Being Assaulted From Within

Obviously there are more than two ways our unalienable rights are being systematically attacked, but the intent of this article is to bring attention to what most on the right would think unimaginable. I humbly ask the reader to put aside any partisanship they may have and observe the facts. Our Constitution is more important than any one person or group.

For those who don’t already know, Mark Levin has helped usher in a renewed effort for an Article V Constitutional Convention under the guise of a “Convention of the States” with his book ‘The Liberty Amendments’.  The last time it was pushed in the 1980’s it was soundly defeated under the term of a Constitutional Convention. Since there is only one Article V Convention for proposing alterations to the Constitution, it makes no difference what one prefers to call it, a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) is what will take place when Congress calls the Convention upon the application of 2/3 of the States.

So what the proponents of a Convention of the States (COS) are doing is violating the Laws of Classical Thought to make it appear as something different when it’s really not. What has become known as “Lincoln’s Riddle” illustrates the absurdness of what they are doing:

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a calf have?

A: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t mean it is one.

But I digress…

The COS movement assures us that unlike a Con Con,  a COS can be limited, so therefore it can be controlled and is perfectly safe. That is their first assault on our natural rights as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [unalienable natural rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…

It is self-refuting to claim that a destructive government can limit the Right of the People in altering or abolishing their form of government.  In George Washington’s Farewell Address, written for him by both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, that Right of the People was once again proclaimed.

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. [Emphasis Mine]

The Delegates to the Article V Convention are invested with all the powers of the People, they are not bound by meaningless laws imposed on them by state or federal governments. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 is evidence of that!

Before moving on to our second natural right being assaulted, it is important to note the second sentence from the excerpt from Washington’s Address. The Constitution still means exactly what it did when first ratified unless amended otherwise, so the federal government is still one of enumerated powers only. Instead of acknowledging that fact, COS proponents choose to remain under the illusion of the Constitution being destroyed by unconstitutional means. They go so far as to claim we are now living in a post-constitutional era, so it doesn’t matter if the whole Constitution is lost at the convention. Those are not the words of patriots who honor their solemn Duties as Citizens of this republic…

Now the second natural right that Mark Levin goes after is the Right to Self-Defense. As Amendment X reminds everyone, whatever powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the States and People. So when the federal government usurps power, they are taking it away from the sovereign States and/or People. The States have the natural right to defend themselves from those usurpations.

The States are not powerless as Mr. Levin and those promoting a Con Con would have us believe. The State has the natural right to nullify unconstitutional laws and interpose between their citizens and the federal government if the feds try enforcing their own unconstitutional acts. Any law that is not made in pursuant of the Constitution is to be immediately considered nugatory and void (see Article VI second clause). Not only does nullification immediately halt the federal government’s lawless intrusion, it demands the violation be immediately addressed by Congress.

In order to trash his opposition, Mark Levin calls people who advocate for state nullification of unconstitutional laws as “kooks”. Well at least we know what Levin really thinks about the Founders he claims to respect…

… but where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis,) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them… ~Thomas Jefferson, The Kentucky Resolutions (1798)

In his Notes on Nullification, James Madison commented on the above:

“… the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression…”

For more on State nullification of unconstitutional laws, see Publius Huldah’s article: James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers.

Unfortunately, the facts don’t support Mark Levin’s rhetoric of being a lover of liberty and a friend of the Constitution. State nullification imposes a strong check and balance on the federal government which upholds and enforces the Constitution. Where Levin’s plan will fundamentally alter the Constitution with gimmicky titled amendments that suggest one thing, but do another. To blindly trust the council of anyone on this important matter would be a fatal mistake for our constitutional republic.

“Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasures, Passions and Interests, nay, their private Friendships and dearest Connections, when they stand in Competition with the Rights of Society.” ~John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren (April 16, 1776)