If the Constitution Doesn’t Matter…

Joseph Beverly, Guest Contributor

The Democrats support bills like restricting the size of ammunition magazines, expanding controls over who can buy guns, and limiting the types of guns that citizens can buy, even though the Constitution expressly forbids them from passing any such laws.

The EPA director uses a false email identity to hide her communications from public scrutiny. An entire network of three-letter agencies takes over Congressional functions and operates outside of Constitutional bounds as unaccountable lawmakers, enforcers, and judges in every area of life.

The president decides he doesn’t care for certain laws and therefore won’t enforce them, even though that is his job. He demands that private companies obey his wishes, and attacks those who don’t.

The Congress votes on far-reaching laws without even reading them. The Supreme Court declares them to be Constitutional even though they are outside the functional areas delegated to the federal government. The Senate can’t be bothered to consider a budget.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law, but the president casually waives the application of onerous legislation for companies he favors, sparing them massive cost and compliance burdens that their competitors must still bear.

The federal government refuses to carry out its Constitutional border control responsibility, and sues a state that tries to protect itself by enforcing existing federal law.

The Tenth Amendment reserves all undelegated powers to the states or the people, but the docile states take federal money and mostly operate as federal departments, not as independent and sovereign entities.

In 2008 our current president said we need a “civilian national security force” as large and well-funded as the U.S. military. Domestic agencies have now stockpiled over a billion rounds of ammunition, much of it hollow-point cartridges designed for close-combat use… inside the country?

Does the Constitution not matter anymore?

George Washington believed that

…the Constitution, which at any time exists ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all.

The means of changing it “by an explicit act of the whole People” are set forth in the document itself, and they don’t include having a “living document” draw deeply on something that looks like a homemade cigarette, wander among the penumbras and emanations, and declare itself to mean something new, something never before imagined.

The only alternative is for it to be discarded, if not kept; there’s no provision for it to be gently smudged into a slightly different set of “suggested guidelines” for each new administration. It has no severability clause allowing some pieces to be kept and others struck. Picking and choosing is not an option.

So has it been discarded? Are we in a post-Constitutional period, as Mark Levin suggests?

Let’s take a stroll through a world where the Constitution no longer governs:

The first Article is gone. Well, look at that. We no longer have a Congress, and no one has the power to tax us for the responsibilities listed in Article I, Section 8. There is no Senate, and no House of Representatives. The smoke-filled cloakrooms can be aired out and turned into museum storage. The restaurants around the Capitol will have 535 fewer customers for lunch when the moving vans are gone, not counting reporters, lobbyists, and others who can go back to their hometowns and find real work.

Article II is gone. We no longer have a president. Whoever is living in the White House needs to pack up his family and go find a job; he’s trespassing on someone else’s property, and there’s no Treasury to pay that pension he was counting on. Put the teleprompter on eBay and give the Japanese shotgun to someone who can actually point it at the skeet.

Article III is gone. That grand Supreme Court building is empty. The District of Columbia can use the building for a City Hall. Oops, the District of Columbia is gone, and we have a square section of land between the states that has no government. (Actually, that’s not much of a change.)

The ACLU no longer has to worry about the Ten Commandments being displayed in a government building, since the building has outlasted the government. In fact, the ACLU may need to find real work too.

Article IV is gone. No new states can be admitted to the Union; of course, there’s no Union left to be admitted to.

Article V? No need for rules to amend a discarded document. Article VI? The states can make their own treaties, and there’s no more need for an oath to support the abandoned document.

And so it goes. If the Constitution no longer matters to the president, the Congress, or the Supreme Court, then it no longer matters. To anyone.

But that’s the document that creates and defines the structure and role of the federal government itself. If we have no Constitution, then we have no federal government.

Perhaps those who refuse to honor the Constitution should consider where that road leads. This could have a serious impact on the housing market along the Potomac.

And without a federal government, who will bail out California?

Equality and Fairness

by Robert Arvay

Perhaps the most famous of all fictional statements regarding equality comes to us from George Orwell’s classic, Animal Farm:  “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The animals, of course, were symbols for people.

Perhaps the most famous nonfictional statement on this topic is, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The first quote, the Orwellian statement, is classic in that it demonstrates the duplicity of those who profess to believe in equality, but who are in fact supremacists, believing themselves to be superior to ordinary people, superior not in skills and virtues, but rather, in their entitlement to rule. The very word itself, “equality,” is distorted by them to mean its opposite. Such verbal inversions are yet another Orwellian device used for deceit and tyranny (see his novel, 1984).

The statement in the Declaration of Independence is also classic, in that it embodies an entirely different ideal of equality, that of personal responsibility and autonomy, both of which are anathema to those who promote socialist statism.

A word often associated with “equality” is, “fairness.” I think that we can all agree on fairness in its generic sense. Who among us advocates for unfairness? The problem is that we all define fairness in different ways. For some people, fairness means that everybody shares equally in the fruits of those who produce those fruits. For others, it means that everyone is free to produce his own fruit, and keep what he produces.

Stating it in this fashion makes it very clear that freedom is not about taking somebody else’s “stuff.” That is not freedom, but stealing.

Therefore, socialists do not call it stealing, they call it, “sharing,” or by various other euphemisms including taxation, and even “investing.” They call it redistribution. They accuse the producers by saying, “You didn’t make that, somebody else made that for you.”

Socialists point to the evils of what they call, “unfettered capitalism.” They would have a point if there were any such thing, but there isn’t.  Besides that, there is a vast difference anyway between pure capitalism and free markets. The so-called capitalists of the 1800’s and early 1900’s were never shy about exploiting big government to ensconce themselves in power. By forming monopolies, they shut off access to free markets for the ordinary citizen. There was no free market. 

Free markets do not come about in the absence of government. They come about when the primary purpose of government is to empower individuals.  When everyone has equal access to the marketplace, when anyone can start up a legitimate business, when small startup businesses can operate without being regulated out of business — then it is that you have free markets.

Fairness, then, is not defined by government power, because government power can too easily fall into the hands of big business. How else does General Motors get a massive, taxpayer bailout, while Hank’s Custom Auto gets nothing except the tax bill to pay for it?

Fairness is defined by the word, “freedom,” and by its twin word, “responsibility.”

There is so much more to this topic than can be covered here. Let’s encapsulate some of the positions taken by the social left into a few satiric statements.

1. I would like to be a quarterback in the National Football League. It’s not my fault that I do not have the talent or the physique to do so. Therefore, the NFL is unfair to me. The rules are rigged to keep me out.

2. Women get pregnant. Men do not. This gives men an unfair competitive advantage in jobs and promotion. Therefore, the government should force the National Football League to reserve half of its roster spots for women, including half its quarterbacks, and half its players at each and every position.

3. Marriage is traditionally heterosexual, because it takes one man and one woman to produce children. That’s not fair to homosexuals who wish to have same-sex marriage. The majority should abandon its moral principles in order to accommodate homosexuals. This abandonment would force Christians to participate materially in same-sex wedding ceremonies by providing supportive services (bakery, photography, etc), their moral values be damned.

4. Marriage is also traditionally confined to two people. If homosexuals can erase the opposite-sex requirement for marriage, then what justification can there be for maintaining the two-person standard? Marriage should consist of any number of people. It’s only fair.

5. Some people have poor health. Others have excellent health. This health inequality is a travesty. Either healthy persons should compensate unhealthy people through forced insurance plans, or else, the healthy people should become unhealthy, so that everyone can be equal. 

These are only a very few of the absurd statements that illustrate the inherent inability of government to make everyone equal, and to make everything fair. There is no end to it. Not terribly long ago, there were actually serious proposals to force high end department stores to hire male dressing room assistants for women’s dressing rooms, including the lingerie department. The proposal would have ruled out any consideration of customer preference.  If you think this is a joke, read this:

“A young woman was fired from the Macy’s San Antonio Rivercenter department store for refusing to violate her religious beliefs by permitting a young man dressed as a woman from entering the women’s dressing room.”

Read more at:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/really-macys#ixzz2puyqRNo3

According to the social left, in order to be fair to everybody, one principle must be paramount above all others:  Everybody is equal, but some people are more equal than others.

Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer

How Your Decisions Shape the World

by Robert Arvay

In reading the news, one can reasonably conclude that our earthly problems are immense. The world is on a tightrope between war and social collapse, where one slight misstep could result in catastrophe. Poverty and disease torment millions, and terrorism threatens us all. Sheesh! What a grim picture is this. Could the entire world come to ruin?

It depends on what you mean by world. Planet earth could easily come to ruin. We are one large meteor strike away from extinction, or one super-volcano eruption, or one major outbreak of a highly contagious new disease. A hundred things could bring about our rapid demise.

Planet earth is however, according to astronomers, but the tiniest drop of water in a vast, immense ocean of space and time. A telescopic photograph of a tiny patch of the night sky, taken as it were through the eye of a needle, reveals not merely millions of stars, but uncountable numbers of galaxies, each of which contains billions of stars. Even that provides but a tiny glimpse of the universe, most of which is beyond the reach of our most powerful telescopes.

Recently, enough planets have been discovered orbiting distant stars to support a suspicion that had long been held by scientists and science-fiction fans alike: the universe probably teems with planets, planets by the trillions upon trillions, including those in our own galaxy, and those in galaxies so far away that we cannot imagine the distances involved.

It hardly requires the imagination of a science-fiction fan to conclude that there are spectacular numbers of planets where life might exist, and if so, then one can only speculate how many of them might contain forms of life much like ourselves. Even if space aliens might not look like us on the outside, perhaps they are human-like on the inside, at the level of the soul. In that respect, there could be trillions of human-like civilizations in the universe.

In contemplating such a thing, we encounter a bit of a conundrum. Some have described our existence in the vast universe as being an insignificant part of the whole. Perhaps there is a mathematical validity to that, but on the other hand, nothing at all is insignificant—nothing. “Not a sparrow falls. . . .”

Being mathematically insignificant does not make insignificant the suffering of a single child, a single human being. For each and every one of us, our personal universe is a very small place, and for each of us, we are at the center of it all. Distant galaxies might explode, but that pales in comparison to a single toothache when no dentist is available.

How can we reconcile this seeming disparity between the personal and the universal? Even if a final answer forever eludes us, there is something that can help. Scientists have discovered something called non-locality, and something closely related to it, calledquantum entanglement. Basically, these ideas form a scientific concept that we non-scientists might express by saying, “everything is connected to everything else.” In scientific terms, it suggests that what happens at one part of the universe can instantly and directly affect something in a far distant galaxy. In social terms, it means that your misfortune is my misfortune.

It is easy, of course, to understand that the national economy is connected to our family budget. Losing your job due to a policy decision at the highest level of government will drive home that bitter fact. It is somewhat more difficult to connect the breakdown of family values to rising crime rates, but most of us can see that connection. Other connections are less obvious, but no less connected. For example, the argument that same-sex marriage will not harm traditional marriage is an argument that initially makes sense only because it is difficult to follow the chain of causeandeffect through all the twists and turns of social interactions. It is easier for many people to accept that the spin of an electron on earth can instantly affect the spin of an electron in another galaxy far, far away, than to believe that the acceptance of one form of immorality breeds ever more immorality throughout society.

The next time you begin to feel insignificant, remember that your moral decisions have eternal consequence. You are the most important person in the universe, and so is everyone else. We are all connected. “Love one another.”


Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer to The Patriot’s Notepad

 

Edward Snowden: Patriot or Traitor?

by Robert Arvay

By now, everyone in America knows about Edward Snowden. Just kidding, of course. Far too many Americans have not the slightest clue about national affairs. Dreadfully few know that NSA stands for National Security Agency, and even fewer have any idea what that agency is, or what it is supposed to do, much less Edward Snowden’s connection with all it.

For those who try to follow the news, even the most informed among us know very little. That is to be expected, of course. The NSA, NSD, CIA and the rest of the secrecy alphabet soup is, well, secret.

To a certain extent, that is as it should be. The government should know things that I do not know. To be frank, the government should probably do things which you and I would both abhor were we to know about them – but there are limits and the big problem, the massive problem, is this:  how does an informed citizenry govern itself when it cannot be informed?

This puts us on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, we want our government to know what our potential enemies are up to, so that we can be protected. On the other hand, we want the secret agencies to use their power for legitimate purposes only, and not for political advantage. Presidents Nixon and Obama have both been accused of using the Internal Revenue Service as a weapon to violate the rights of political opponents. How much more serious, then, is the possibility that super-secret surveillance and other measures, can be turned against the American public and not for reasons in the national interest?

Conspiracy theories abound, but there are also legitimate concerns brought about by the fact that high officials in government power are already known to have abused their positions. Even in cases when their intentions are good, the next question that arises is one of competence. How skillful are those who are entrusted with the duty of running our national security apparatus? Can they prevent attacks? Can they protect the innocent?

The track record is far from spotless. The infamous 9/11/2001 attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon occurred despite numerous red flags that were made public only after the atrocities were committed. Indeed, even six months after, two of the dead attackers were granted visas by the State Department, in a bizarre punctuating event that demonstrated the utter ineptness of those in charge of even the most basic of our protective measures.

More recently, despite the US government being warned of danger by the Russian government, two Chechen terrorists killed and maimed Americans with bombs during the Boston Marathon. Afterward, the FBI was unable to identify the terrorists, until the supposedly “secret surveillance” photographs were made public, and citizens recognized and reported the terrorists.

Most recently, the Edward Snowden affair not only revealed that government officials have brazenly lied to the oversight committees in Congress, but on top of all that, the fact that a low-level employee of a contractor was able to pull off the intelligence heist of the twenty-first century – reveals that despite all the ten-foot-thick steel, front doors protecting our secrets, the back door had been left wide open and unguarded. Snowden was long gone before anyone—anyone – noticed that anything was missing. Who has been held accountable for this staggering degree of incompetence? We hear nothing but lame excuses.

Is Snowden a patriot or a traitor? Personally, I am reserving judgment. People whom I admire, and whose opinions I respect, have given opposing answers to the question. Some regard Snowden as a traitor who undermined American security and endangered us all. Others see him as a hero who unmasked nefarious deeds being committed by officials acting not in the national interest, but for motives other than that.

Of one thing, I am certain, however. If Edward Snowden is to be punished for what he did, then so should the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper. Snowden may have told truths that should not have been told, but Clapper told lies that should not be tolerated under the rule of law.

Secret courts, and secret hearings behind closed doors, have proved insufficient to ensure that the NSA acts in our interests, not its own. What is needed is an aggressively intrusive, adversarial agency composed of ordinary citizens to investigate even the most secret agencies of government, to open every door, to look in every corner, and to have the power to hold accountable those who abuse our trust.

If We the People cannot be trusted, then what after all, is the point of protecting us?

Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer to The Bold Pursuit®

Legislating Immorality

by Robert Arvay          

Personally, I regard homosexuality more as a dysfunction of the brain than a moral failure. Homosexual people probably do not choose their predispositions. What can be chosen, however, is whether to accept or reject the claims of so-called gay rights activists that this disorder is to be celebrated, and that its victims should be given the right to redefine marriage.

Western culture has always been about freedom – but it has never been about license. Freedom from slavery under Egypt’s pharaoh did not translate into freedom to worship the Golden Calf. To use a secular principle, freedom of speech does not include the freedom to commit fraud.

The Constitution embodies the highest ideals of thousands of years of Western civilization and culture. It embodies them, it is founded upon them, but it does not and cannot replace them. That is why John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The Constitution does not give us rights; it merely recognizes our God-given rights. It is an instrument designed to help protect those rights.

Even though the Constitution never directly mentions God, its ideals are deeply rooted in the traditions of Judaism and Christianity. It is consistent with its forbearer, the Declaration of Independence, wherein it is declared that human beings are, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” It does not say that they are “permitted by their government to exercise certain negotiable rights.”

Without this clear acknowledgment that human rights come from the Supreme Being, one would instead have to concede that all human rights are conditional upon whatever is the current structure of power, the particular fad of the moment. Subjective rights are not rights at all, but merely temporary, revocable privileges.

Unfortunately, secular liberals disagree with the Declaration, and their disagreement is emphatic. Indeed, the false idea – the idea that government is the source of our rights – is at the very heart of secular liberalism.

To recognize that human rights come from God is to affirm that there is indeed a God, and that His commandments are not subordinate to the whimsy of men, but are absolute and eternal. It is to affirm that we can neither add to nor subtract from God’s word, except at great peril.

If the Constitution could stand apart from the centuries of religious context which gave rise to it, then it could be imposed upon any nation, with exemplary results. But it is clear from history and from current events as well, that no document can transform an unjust nation into a just one. Taken in isolation, no written embodiment of ideals can save a people who do not adopt those ideals as their own. Were it otherwise, the US Constitution could have been forced upon the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and today they would be shining examples of religious freedom. Sadly, despite our best efforts, those nations remain dark examples of religious intolerance and sectarian brutality, where women are oppressed, and free speech is stifled.

It is vital then, to understand and embrace not only the written words of the Constitution itself, but also its underlying values. Its words are indispensable, but they are an edifice which rests upon an equally indispensable moral foundation, the foundation provided to us by God.

To be sure, the religious foundations of the Constitution must never be twisted so as to institute a state religion. But neither must those foundations be undermined with imported values that are in contradiction to the Constitution. Sharia law is, for example, a deadly injection into the national culture, a perverse distortion of religious freedom. The determined and persistent efforts to slip it into civil law must be aggressively countered. Likewise, contrived rights, such as those which redefine marriage, will undermine both the written and unwritten ideals of the nation. Immorality will, as Phil Robertson warns us, ‘morph outward from there.’

There is room for honest debate as to how moral values should be enshrined into written law, and which cannot be. It is wisely said that morality cannot be legislated – but it is equally true that immorality can indeed be legislated, and many laws do exactly that. Forcing landlords to rent to unmarried couples, forcing professional photographers to accommodate homosexual weddings, and requiring pharmacists to supply abortifacient drugs are just a few examples that come quickly to mind.

In the near future, licensing of brothels in all fifty states may become mandatory. Providing clean injection centers for drug addicts may be considered a right of addicts, and an obligation of the taxpayer. A requirement that grade schools teach homosexual propaganda will likely be enacted. To varying degrees, all of this has already occurred. If no line is drawn, a line based in Christian morality, then there will be no line at all. The morphing of destructive immorality into national destruction will become a tragic reality.

With freedom comes the duty to do good. That duty requires us to reject the false and destructive values of the Golden Calf.

Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer to The Patriot’s Notepad

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Georgia”,”serif”;}

A Second American Revolution?

by Robert Arvay

Had King George seen it coming, he could have prevented the 1776 American Revolution. That it was coming, was plain to see, but he continued his oppressive policies until it was too late to turn back. A long and bloody war ensued, but the mighty British Empire had met its match.

Had the king acted more prudently, he could have treated the American colonists as what they were in their own eyes:  Englishmen – entitled to the same rights as other British subjects under the provisions of the Magna Carta. The king may have had pragmatic reasons for not granting major concessions to the colonists, but those reasons paled in comparison to the benefits to be gained. Sharing national sovereignty with colonists had its risks, but the benefits of maintaining a dominating world empire would have made those risks worthwhile. With adequate British foresight and finesse, we could even today be flying the Union Jack over our state – that is, provincial – capitols.

Fast forward to 2014, and we find an analogous situation. Instead of a king, we have a president, surrounded by advisors who are, as he is, disciples of the radical left. The list of abuses and usurpations, imposed on the American people, are now as long and as onerous as those enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. Our so-called representatives in London —oops, Washington – pass laws they have not read, and then exempt themselves from the burdens of those laws, while enforcing them on us.

The eventual result of such abuses is foreseeable and inevitable. At some future point in time, the longsuffering American people will once again declare independence.

Bear in mind, however, that the American Revolution of 1776 was not sparked overnight. Even after the Declaration was signed, sealed and delivered, about half the American colonists remained loyal to the king. Many of the battles of the war were fought not between Americans and British soldiers, but between Americans and Americans. Not even the infamous Boston Massacre triggered war. The infamous event occurred more than six years before independence was declared.

What is worrisome is that, while those in power may see a popular resistance coming, their response has not been to grant concessions, but to tighten their grip. Their granting of more individual freedoms takes the form of same-sex marriage, but not the form of honoring the Bill of Rights, a list of ten constitutional amendments that, let’s face it, would be fiercely opposed by the left were they today to be introduced for the first time. In particular, the Second and Tenth Amendments would never be allowed to the floor of Congress for a vote. Not even the Republican House Speaker would favor them.

Also worrisome is the clever leftist tactic of allowing the wolves to vote with the sheep on what to have for lunch. By confiscating wealth from those who produce it, and then distributing it to those who do not, including those who openly violate our immigration laws, the left has created a ready-made army of modern-day Tories, those who have become so dependent on the government largesse that is bankrupting us, that when, inevitably, the goose no longer lays the golden egg, there will be riots in the streets of every city in the nation. Unfortunately, the riots will be directed against those who produce, not against the tyrants.

Most worrisome of all is that the federal government now has in its possession forms of technology that multiply its power to suppress freedom – to suppress it by means far beyond anything that history has heretofore seen.

King George did not have drones, he did not have the NSA, he did not have HAARP, and he did not have the secret weapons systems which we can only guess have been developed.

We the People, on the other hand, have only a decreasing right to possess even the weakest forms of personal defense. To paraphrase the words of the president, we have only two weapons:  our guns and our Bibles.

He missed the third one. We have an undying thirst for liberty. Together, these three weapons will eventually prevail.

The next American Revolution will not, however, be like the ones in the movies. It will not be over in ninety minutes. The handsome hero will not get the girl. It will instead be what the struggle for freedom has always been—“blood, sweat, toil and tears.” It has always been that, it will always be that, and one more thing:  it will always be worth it.

Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer to The Bold Pursuit®

(About the artwork: Originally entitled Yankee Doodle, this is one of several versions of a scene painted by A.M. Willard in the late nineteenth century that came to be known as The Spirit of ’76. The life-sized original hangs in Abbot Hall in Marblehead, Massachusetts.

This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first occurred prior to January 1, 1923)

Happy 2014 to Our Friends and Readers

Happy New Year to our visitors and friends! Remember – only 11 months and 4 days until Election Day 2014 …

The Publisher and Editors wish to thank our Contributing and Guest Contributors for generously sharing their talents and efforts with us during the past year: John Wayne Tucker, Genevieve, Robert Arvay, Nadra “Cap Black” Enzi, Noel Alcoba, Jake Aurelian, Erik Rush, Jim Mullen, Don Hank, Thomas Gilleece, Roger Pol, Hartley Atkins, LMAObama.com, Ron Devito (US4Palin), Alex Burwasser, Paul Palmisano, Sandy Stringfellow, Jim Davis, Bruce O’Hara (The E-Blast)