Our Individual and National Duty of Self-Preservation
Natural rights are rights that flow to man from God through nature. Because these rights rest on God rather than government, America’s Founding Fathers described them as inalienable. And since they exist upon a divine foundation, the Founders argued that they were fixed and unchanging — and warned that they were not to be infringed. Moreover, because the source of natural rights was (and is) God himself, our Founders believed those rights carried more weight than they otherwise would, which meant each natural right was coupled with a corresponding duty.
Samuel Adams, one of the driving forces behind the American Revolution, made this point when he described “the duty of self-preservation … [as] the first law of nature.” In other words, the first lesson he drew from natural law was not only that we have an individual right to preserve our lives but a duty to do so as well. Like many of America’s Founding Fathers, Adams’ worldview had been framed by the writings of Enlightenment philosopher John Locke, who wrote that our lives were our chief property, and that those lives, being the gift of God, come to us joined with an intrinsic obligation to defend them.
Throughout this nation’s history, even those who have never read the works of Adams or Locke have intuitively understood the things about which they wrote. And this understanding has translated into everything from deadbolts on our front doors to concealed-carry guns on our persons and the emergence of “castle doctrine” legislation in states throughout the land.
What we must grasp is that from every individual right and duty a national equivalent can be extrapolated. Adams indicated as much when he wrote: “Government was instituted for the purposes of common defense.” And in Federalist 41, James Madison was even more specific when he wrote that “security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society.”
To put it plainly, those to whom we entrust power in government — the president, the Congress, and the Senate — should use that power to defend our nation and the lives of our fellow citizens the way we use our individual powers to defend our own lives and the property we possess. And while there are many honorable ways by which our elected officials could do this, three clear examples would be the construction of fences on our borders, using missile defense shields to cover our shores, and supporting a dominant and ruthless military that is ready to respond to any threat at a moment’s notice.
Beautifully thought out and written. Incidentally, everything you say goes double for me.
This is evident in the fact that he does not take the threat from militant Islam as seriously as he should, as demonstrated by his administration’s June 2009 “pledge” to strike “a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim community … [and] to [use] criminal and civil rights laws to protect Muslim Americans.”
And let’s not forget that one of the goals of every single practicing mahoundian living on American soil, including those picked by Buraq Hussein to work in his administration, such as Dalia Mogahed, is to replace the US Constitution with the savagery of the barbaric, misogynist, fascist, racist, discriminatory, violent and primitive sharia law.
I can’t get that picture out of my head. Obama meets Patton,I know which one would be wee weed up!
It should be remembered that Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, could not answer the question: “do people have a right to personal self defense?”, and 68 Senators voted to confirm her.
It seems that Obama is more interested in protecting a socialist agenda than this Country. He has no idea how precious people take their right to self protection, nor does his lap dog congress and his automaton cabinet. They will, however, discover to their peril that we, those annoying “real Americans” will say “enough”, and act accordingly. It will be far too late for them to discover the err of their ways by then. They are simply counting on the fact that we all remain as sheep, and do as we are told. That era is fast coming to a close. The time has come for all hands on deck, and to save the ship from the rocks that the administration and democrat congress are steering us to at flank speed.
Mr. Hawkins,
Interesting article.
Washington Examiner’s Chris Stirewalt had a good read in his op-ed yesterday as well..
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Gloomy-Obama-would-rather-be-a-victim-than-leader-88227907.html
Patton was a true American; BHO is an Afro-Asian, Third World leader, head of a Third World “democracy” (i.e., democracy on paper only.)
Our prior form of government, that of a “Representative Republic” died on 11/04/08. It’s cause of death was the cancer of the radical left, which first appeared in the 1960s and grew untreated for forty years. Only God knows what’s ahead for this new “US of A.”
5. FEDup: I do not believe that our constitution allows for revolution. Maybe I missed that part in Article II, perhaps you can point it out.
2. Proud_Kafir7908: Correct me if I am wrong, but Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. You have to have a love of the constitution to teach it. Also I know that he was one of the most highly acclaimed professors by his students. Before you start rattling off crap about the liberal elite blah blah blah, UC is a conservative school.
If we really want to get back to what the founding fathers had intended we would pull all our troops back to the borders and not have any foreign bases. As for our southern border, the founding fathers had a completely open immigration policy.
@7:
Are you jesting or are you daft? Would any government explicitly state in its founding charter, “Oh, by the way, you can overthrow us if we do this, that, or the other thing” — ?
The right of revolution flows from the right of self-defense. A State that oppresses its subjects is only one more criminal organization. Those subjects have the same right to move against it with force as they would to kill a mugger in the act, if they have the means. That’s what the Second Amendment is really about.
As for Barack Hussein Obama’s supposed love of the Constitution, I’d suggest you consult your brain-care specialist at once for an adjustment of your medications.
>I do not believe that our constitution allows for revolution
the Declaration provides the rationale
>Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. You have to have a love of the constitution to teach it.
No you don’t. Obama sees the Constitution as an obstacle.
>Also I know that he was one of the most highly acclaimed professors by his students.
Stalin was highly acclaimed by his generals. Your point?
Real Americans share Hawkins’ conviction here. He has well shown that while we wouldn’t dare be so feeble as to lay down our guns in the face a home invader, thus allowing him to plunder our families at will, neither can we lay down our guns nationally and allow our country to be plundered. This is just common sense, which sadly, is lacking in the Obama administration.
What a lot of people out there are NOT considering about the health care debate is what affect this legislation will have on our military. Quite frankly, if health care passes, that will be the end of us as a world power. All of you out there had better get used to the fact that we will become a second-rate power with First World nuclear weapons, no better than Britain or France. Because if health care passes, our military will be gutted like a fish.
Why do you think Obama is in such a hurry to leave Afghanistan and Iraq? He knows that if health care passes there is no way we will be able to afford our current military commitments around the world. We will certainly NOT be able to fight a war in Afghanistan and we will not be able to afford keeping a substantial amount of troops in Iraq in order to ensure the stability of that nation. No, we’ll have to start bringing everyone home, perhaps even the ones in South Korea and Germany, keeping only token forces (i.e., 10,000 or 20,000 troops) in each of those countries.
How can I say this? Simple math, my friends. Health care will become the black hole of every Congressional budget from now on. We will have to pour trillions of dollars into it just to keep it going, which will leave very little left for a credible world-wide military force. Don’t believe me? Well, just look at Britain and France. Both used to be world powers and both are major socialist nanny states. Because of all of the money they have to sink into their social welfare programs, their military defense expenditures have plummeted over the past 65 years since the end of World War II. They now barely have an ability to project and sustain military power around the world. For example, Great Britain was barely able to fight the Falkland Islands war due to massive defense cuts and today they probably could not even mount an operation like that. Increased social welfare spending will mean a lot, and I mean A LOT, less defense spending and Americans had better get used to that.
There are some of you out there who probably would not mind a lot less defense spending. Liberals and isolationists probably would embrace the idea of gutting our military so that we could spend even more money on inefficient and costly social welfare programs. Well kids, just remember that if we go down that road then we won’t be able to protest, let alone stop, what countries like China, North Korea, Iran, or even Russia want to do in different parts of the world. So if Iran wants to control the flow of oil in the Persian Gulf and close the Straits of Hormuz, we may not have the capability of stopping them. What would that mean to us? Oh, probably $7 or $8 a gallon gas, that’s all. You get the picture.
Thomas Jefferson took this young country to war against the Barbary Pirates in 1800 not because he wanted to, but because he wouldn’t allow our trade with the outside world to be held hostage by a foreign power (in this case, he had to protect American merchant ships from pirates in the Mediterranean). “Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute,” was the battle cry that went out back then, and we should heed those words today. Unfortunately, if we go the health care route, we may not have those “Millions for defense” anymore.
It’s not too late, America. We can still stop this. Take a stand. Be like Thomas Jefferson and don’t surrender to a bunch of pirates who are threatening our military posture in this world. Because, if we let this happen, then we will just have to bend to the whims of ever petty tyrant or dictator around the world. And that, my frinds, will represent a major loss of freedom, one that I don’t think we would be able to recover from.
Brian N-THe constitution certainly does affirm that if neede and the only way to keep our republic, the 2nd amendment is ther for another revolution, as well as what is stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Obama has NO clue about constitutional law, as he demonstrated when he made th statement ‘all the constitution does is say what the federal government cannot do’. Guess he might want to read ALL of the constitution first before making that absurd assumption.
We need to have outr military strategically placed around the globe as a deterrent. And we need to have an immigration policy that works, not porous borders, including the southern border, as well as vetting all those who want to become american citizens, all those who come in illegally need to be treated as the criminals they are.
8. Francis W. Porretto: and 9. Jones: you guys make really good arguments against what my factual conclusions. You are right I should go see the brain specialist or you should back up your rantings with some kind of factual substance. Why was Stalin highly acclaimed by his generals, because he was a good strategist. Why was Obama a praised constitutional professor, because he was good at teaching the constitution and he has a great love for it. All the constitutional teachers at my school loved the subject. It is hard to teach something you do not love. Please explain ONE way that Obama has violated the constitution. Please back this up with facts and not crazy conspiracy theories.
Patton was a man among men. Obama is a unfinished man-child who fits the Democrats image of themselves: narcisstic power grabbing. Thank the Lord that the majority of thinking Amercian citizens are aware of the Obamanation of this Administration and their Congressional accolytes. Go Conservatives, Go Republicans. Beat the Liberal-radical-Democrats. Sink the Obama-Reid-Pelosi Health “Theft” Bill.
Brian N,
I don’t condone a revolution. Though I believe FEDup is alluding to the ‘Network’ mantra: ‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not..’. A ‘revolution’ so to speak in terms of demonstrations. Surely you know a person planning a physical type of revolution wouldn’t post such ridiculous nonsense?
Secondly, UC is not the stalwart of ‘Conservatism’ nowadays. UC Economics is uber-Conservative still, though some may say Harvard Law School is more Conservative.. if possible.
Your response to our Founding Fathers being open minded to our southern neighbors, as you know situations change. Our forefathers weren’t experiencing drug-related crime in the Mexico border states Durango, Coahuila (sp?) and Chihuahua.. and now pregnant U.S. officials from the U.S. Consulate.
The U.S. and Mexico’s response? The Merida Initiative. With no oversight/ without condition of the nearly $2 billion given to Mexico’s President Calderon, the money would have better off with Africa’s Mugabe.
As for illegal immigration’s ripple effects in the Beltway, just yesterday illegals raped an Alexandria, VA woman. As well as an illegal Panamanian, and murderer fled to the U.S. and was receiving federal subsidies!
I can discuss further the MS-13 murders of bystanders, their ‘entitlements’, abuse of the 14th Amendment, receiving in-state tuition, some counties allowing bypassing of finals for H.S. graduation, failure of ELL, ad infinitum..
EXCELLENT ARTICLE! This message should be broadcast far and wide, as it is the one that those in “fly-over country” adhere to and believe in. It is a banner under which conservatives can unite and under which they have united (whether they know it or not). Kudos to Hawkins for putting it so succinctly.
11. Libertyship46: Of course Obama knows more about the constitution than both of us. Please show me a link where Obama does make that statement because I do not believe you. Although, if you look at the constitution without the amendments (first 7 Articles) it is mainly a limit on the powers of the government. The second amendment is the only affirmative right to the people given the others are what the government cannot do to you. This makes sense because the founding fathers were skeptical of too much central government control, and rightly so. I am not sure about whether the founding fathers intended the second amendment to be to protect against the government, certainly a argument could be made to that point. However, we already have a governmental body that is in charge of keeping the constitution safe, I believe they are called The Supreme Court. Also, I agree that we do need bases around the world my point was that the founding fathers did not intend for our country to have a military presence around the world. So, things change and we cannot always go by what the founding fathers intended, as per the point you just made for me.
We can still preserve our rights under the Constitution if the 36 states with pending legislation/resolutions affirming the 10th Amendment will follow the courageous lead of Governor Otter (Idaho) and SUE the federal government for its extraordinary and illegal intrusion into the lives of an unwilling citizenry. The government takeover of healthcare represents an unprecedented usurp of power,taxation without representation, and an ominous determination to ignore the will of the people. As Governor Otter stated, litigation undertaken in 37 states on behalf of its citizens would constitute a critical mass. GO GOVERNOR OTTER ! We must urge our respective governors to act swiftly and with solidarity against this outrage.
This kind of material, though much needed, is sorely lacking in our national dialogue today. Students and adults alike fail to grasp the things Hawkins has clearly illustrated here. They don’t understand that the national duty that corresponds to the individual duty because leftist educators make sure to mock the idea of innate duties (and innate knowledge).
We must somehow re-teach these lessons, so our children grow up viewing our national borders the way they view their front door. That way, they’ll see the need to put a lock on both.
”Moreover, because the source of natural rights was (and is) God himself, our Founders believed those rights carried more weight than they otherwise would, which meant each natural right was coupled with a corresponding duty.”
As long as the majority of the people do not consider the State to be the highest authority in their lives, democrats cannot establish the socialist feudalism they so badly want as a replacement for the paradise they lost as a result of losing the Civil War. That’s exactly why the ACLU and the democrat party have worked so hard to obscure the founders’ intentions with regards to the separation of Church and State. At this point, though, it’s even worse than if we were merely saddled with the typical hypocritical democrat who swears that faith is important, just not important enough to in any way limit the power of the State. Barry Soetoro is, in fact if not in name, a run of the socialist Muslim. There is no doubt that he plans to follow in the footsteps of the secular Islamic states he defers to and the kingdoms whose leaders he finds worthy of bowing to. Healthcare will be the issue that grants him the same power of life and death, power he can wield without the bother of legal appeals, over those who dare desire the lifestyle of Western freedom, freedom he sees as an unacceptable indulgence. Not only will it permit him to remove from our diet those things he considers indulgent, it will also grant him the authority to determine which beliefs have a negative impact on “mental health” and gradually restrict those beliefs out of existence. To insure the cost of health care is minimized, he’ll be able to make sure that parents are not “damaging” their children’s’ mental health by “indoctrinating” them with Christian values or depriving them of their right to “socialization” by homeschooling them.
Those who slap a fish on their car to display their Christianity but have long had the temerity to vote democrat will be pleased to know that they’ve finally voted themselves into the situation of Egyptian Copts. Copts arguably have religious freedom, but in practice live in fear of both their government and their neighbors who practice the approved religion of the State, a State that tolerates them only so long as their faith appears to be gradually dying out. There is no Christian liberal point of view; there are only liberal points of view that the pretense of Christianity helps to further by lulling those attempting to live Christian lives into apathy. That’s exactly why we regularly see political meetings held in churches at the same time the media and democrat politicians go apoplectic when anyone mentions their faith if they’re not citing democrat approved theology. Fortunately for many who claim to be Christian, the State religion will welcome their conversion with open arms and probably even provide a simple means to remove those fish without damaging the paint.
Regards
FWIW, the DC Court of Appeals, 04-7041, in the Hellor case
ruling upheld by SCOTUS concluded regarding the 2nd amend
“That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).”
So, they determined tho Constitution enshrined the means for THE PEOPLE to enforce government compliance with the constitution.
However, in the Declaration of Independence, which is a justification for violent rebellion against the existing governmnent it states, ” Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable…”
I propose that the evils such as Nancy Pelosi have not progressed to the point where violent enforcement vice working within the existing system is prudent.
As a side note, in terms of how our system is aligned to supporting the principles of a Constutitonal government vice the Government (Congress, president etc). The military oath and oaths of office swear allegiance to THE CONSTITUTION- not to the government. and it recognizes those enemies could include non-foreign threats. I.E. paraphrasing:
“I…. do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. To bear true faith and allegiance to the same. To obey the LAWFUL orders of those appointed over me….”
18. The Supreme Court called the Second Amendment a doomsday provision- when the President and legislature engage in blatant usurpation of power, when the Supreme Court is unwilling to overturn their unconstitutional power grabs, or unable to enforce their decisions, and when the military fails in its duty to overthrow such a government, the people retain the right to take matters into their own hands and overthrow such a tyrannical regime. Likewise, there is no moral obligation to obey illegitimate authority- Romans 13 applies only to actual governing authorities, not usurpers and pretenders to the title, and President Jefferson declared, “When the government exceeds its Constitutional authority, its actions are null and void of force.” Therefore, we have no duty to recognize a government that will not obey its own laws. We are not a monarchy, and we are not a democracy. We are a Republic.
23. And the officer’s oath doesn’t even say anything about obeying orders.
I do not believe that our constitution allows for revolution. Maybe I missed that part in Article II, perhaps you can point it out.
“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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it“.
The right of rebellion has ever been recognized in the US, even by Abraham Lincoln when he debated against Stephen Douglas (Let’s remind that the Deep South seceded before Lincoln even being sworn President so the Southerners couldn’t invoke right of rebellion since this must be based on “Government being destructive of these ends”)
Also why the Founding Fathers introduced the Second Amendment? So the citizens could shoot at birds?
Excellent article, and hooray! for AWR HAwkins.
The thoughts expressed above are timeless, IMHO, and must be repeated and repeated and repeated until they are part of the fabric of this nation again. The Leftists have assaulted our myths and our heroes long enough — the harm they have caused to the American Enterprise is colossal — but it’s not unfixable. The powers of America to heal itself are nearly unlimited, especially when compared against the minority of self-loathers and American-haters among us who have slithered into power. These cockroaches are not, and never will be the majority. Time for housecleaning — time for taking out the trash — and time for a renewal of America!
26. JFM: Just so you know you are quoting the Declaration of Independence, which is different from the Constitution. In case you misunderstood when I said IN THE CONSTITUTION. As for why the founding fathers included the provision, that is up for debate. I do not think shooting birds is one of the major theories out there. However, keeping the ability of the states form s well regulated militia in case the British or other European government attempted to invade is a popular theory. Notice how it says well regulated though. I think it is also likely that having just come from an oppressive British government that the purpose was give people the right to overthrown an oppressive domestic government. I do not know because I was not there, but neither were you.
Brian N, just as a point of fact, Stalin was a moron when it came to military strategy. Russia only recovered when he finally understood that and left the strategy to his generals. He was however brilliant at destroying anyone he thought was a possible threat to himself within his own government.
Revolution would be a terrible thing here but know this; we will not go quietly into the night. That is why Obama is doing the “frog in a pot of water” method of boiling freedom from this country. He is betting on killing the frog before we become aware. He is wrong. We will not support his new aristocracy.
I agree that our rights are inalienable and that they exist prior to political organization, but if you assert that they come from God, how will you persuade an atheist or agnostic that our rights do not flow merely from the changing dictates of the government?
28. Brian N, if you have the time and inclination the briefs, rulings as well as the oral arguments in the Heller and current Chicago gun cases are well worth a read for the historical background to the Second Amendment. Key to the rulings was that the 2nd Amendment was written to guarantee the new government would respect a pre-existing right to bear arms under English law.
Heller was DC Court of Appeals case 04-7041 and at SCOTUS it was case 07-290.
Used to have links up to the material at http://www.saf.org for the Heller case.
http://www.chicagoguncase.com provides links to briefs including the amici which provide a lot of historical background on the 14th amendment which didn’t come up in Heller because of difference of DC as federal entity and Illinois as a state.
Brian N. you got it just right.
“I think it is also likely that having just come from an oppressive British government that the purpose was give people the right to overthrown an oppressive domestic government.”
We had a good run from then until now but the pendulem of oppressive government has swung back.
Amen! If this piece doesn’t sum it all up nothing ever will. We MUST get back to this basic understanding. Liberalism, by its very nature, takes us away from operating on a solid foundation to operating on a lie. And the result is the complexity and confusion that surrounds liberal legislation and liberal goals. However, in a sound worldview (a conservative worldview), solutions are much simplier to understand. As Hawkins has shown, just as we defend our lives on an individual level there is a corresponding duty to defend our country on a national level. Unlike liberalism, this truth is easy to understand.
18. Brian N: – it’s amazing that a trolling tool like you would have the socialist gall to go grazing in public after what your fearless leader – and his idiots in power – have wrought in the past year.
…”Why was Stalin highly acclaimed by his generals, because he was a good strategist. Why was Obama a praised constitutional professor, because he was good at teaching the constitution and he has a great love for it…” – Kudo’s for the appropriate pairing of historical figures there Bri – even if it was a freudian slip rather than a conscious choice.
Even though the fawning editors at Newsweek found it irresistable to insert Obama into FDR garb on its famous cover – as Brian N shows us (and by the sitting Teleprompter in chiefs own actions) -it was really Uncle Joe that Obama should have been imitating on said cover.
Again, Brian N insists – several times in fact – that BHO is all that so much more when it comes to constitutional scholarship. And even though there has been a raging paper chase among some media folk who retain a certain ethical skepticism when it comes to their reporting – NAMELY THE CHARGE THAT OBAMA (And the First Lady’s as well) ACADAMIC RECORDS AND WRITINGS have mysteriously disappeard down some Chicago rabbit hole thus remaining blissfully beyond scrutiny – Bri & co are here to inform us all – not so.
Barrack, even when he was just Barry, was well on his way to Consitutional genius, at least as far as the organic branch. The kind that Scalia has well defined – the ‘if you can’t understand it, WHY NOT MAKE IT UP!’ kind – an obvious allure to knuckleheads like Bri.
And fianlly, what, pray tell, is the ‘smoking gun’ as far as Bri’ & Co’s evidence? Why the students! Who else should decide whether the Prez flubbed his dissenting opinion during the State of the Union – or anything else judical? Bork for chrissakes!! What are his qualifications?
Because as Bri asserts – “Also I know that he was one of the most highly acclaimed professors by his students.” Wow, thanks for filling us in. And the lure of studying at the State Legislature in Springfield, and all of what, about 20 Grand yearly salary to ‘serve’, pried him away from a lucrative career in Constitutional Scholarship? Yeah, right.
What is next Brian – did BHO break with the ‘other founding members of the Black P-Stone Nation’ in Chicago to challange Bobby Ross (actual founding member of the Chicago Black Panthers)for his one and only losing political campaign because winning a congressional seat would further his attempts to employ his own personal theory of jury nullification – since I have heard from a friend of a friend of a friend of an uncle who once had Obama in one of his courses (exactly how many years – or was it just semesters – did he actually teach?) that jury nullification was a highlighted theme in his ‘presentation’?
I mean such a suggestion is hardly absurd, given the tortured logic you’ve been pushing here of late.
Such as yes, pigs have wings Virginia, and Unicorns will come back to defend us against the bad bad health care bill should Obi Wan demon pass if from the dark side…
9. Francis W. Porretto: – is absolutely spot on – Bri is a job for professionals – and – has been off his meds. Health care reform or no health care reform – it’s back to the Cuckoo Nest for Bri Bri. And Nurse Rachett; do not GIVE HIM HIS CIGARETTES BACK!
Noesis Noeseos, I believe a hesitancy to recognize that our rights come from God for fear of how athiests or agnostics will react is itself a proof of how the left has impacted and softened each of us. Thomas Jefferson was no Christian, yet even he, as the author of the Declaration of Independence, confessed that we are “endowed” with certain rights from our Creator. Without this recognition we are never free and never to be free. For our rights will only exist as long as our rulers deem appropriate. If atheists or agnostics have a problem with that, they can look to Communist regimes like the U.S.S.R. and Cuba to see what countries that take a national atheistic stance do to their people.
Obama= Indonesian communist, not American in any way shape or form.
We do have the right to abolish a tyrannical government. This is a God given right.
It is also a God given responsibility. It will not be done in unrighteousness but in defense of the truth. This is a test for us all; do we love the truth or not. If you happen to exist in the clouded state of not knowing the truth it is no ones fault but your own. It is our job to seek the truth, to prove the truth and demand punishment for the lie. The law of God is if you seek it with all of your heart you will find it. No one, no matter how simple minded or humble is denied the truth by God if they should seek it, desire it or demand it.
The Father in heaven has stripped our government naked, their plans are not hidden the agenda is plain even though they have lied through their teeth to hide it.
Will we as a nation defend truth and justice or are we deserving of tyrannical masters? The choice has consequences. TBD.
This article is excellent. Those that oppose these views are living in a dream world. Conditioned/brainwashed as those who were loyal to Hitler, Stalin, and the Japanese leader at the time of WWII. They are too far gone- We have to bring America, the good ole’ USA back to what it was when we were created as a nation, a Christian, God loving, God fearing, nation, with morals and respect/acceptance for what is good not evil. There are evil forces among us. Run from them ! The new religion that there is NO good AND evil is a hoax. Align yourself with the good and shun the evil as best you can. May GOD have mercy on us who want to go back to the good ole’ USA. Yes, we want change, we want to change back from the corrupt “Chicago style” of government to the old fashioned FOUNDING FATHERS type. Beware of the Educated Fools.
@18. Brian N: Of course Obama knows more about the constitution than both of us. Please show me a link …
While you’re waiting, how about producing a link affirming that BHO ever even passed a graduate-level course in Constitutional Law, let alone satisfactorily completed the required coursework necessary to teach the subject. That should be easy, since I’m sure he provides ample reference to his education in this regard in the many scholarly articles he wrote while editor of the HLR.
When you write to him for this information, you might also ask why he adamantly refuses to support Tort Reform, since his very own alma mater has reported that 40% of medical malpractice suits filed in the U.S. are “without merit”.
Oh wait, scratch that. We know why.
Given BHO’s fascist track record to date, it’s clear he has no more understanding of the Constitution than the average 10-year-old.
34. Phoenix48: ok lets see if your arguments can raise from the ashes. Just a cursory glance at lexis and I found two articles Obama contributed too. NOVEMBER, 1989, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 18795 and May, 1989, 69 B.U.L. Rev. 695, 16887
I think you took the argument out of the scope of whether the president is knowledgeable about constitutional law. Also, I find it hard to believe that you can teach a subject in law school and not know anything about the subject, just having finished law school. I find your ranting not too persuasive. Tell me one way Obama has broken the constitution. Just one way. Be specific and support it with facts. I am sorry that you have trouble with different opinions, and that your only way to deal with them is to demonize the other person. Why dont you learn to argue like a grown up.
@ 9: you obviously addressed your comments to #8 and not me (#7).
38. goy: here is your link http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media . To teach law you have to a J.D. so that speaks for itself, that is the only requirement there is no special requirement. Also, he graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and was the Editor of the Law Review. Neither of those things happen if you do not have satisfactory grades in your 1L Constitutional law class. Also, you do not teach 12 years at a law school unless you know the subject. I can understand an argument saying you do not agree with his political philosophy, but to try and claim is not understand the constitution is a silly argument. He has to be a really smart man to have graduated with those grades from Harvard Law.
It’s obviously useless to refer to BHO as a specialist in anything, let alone a “constitutional scholar;” we have neither recorded (through appropriate records) or minimally justifiable (by observation} evidence he is an expert on anything – with the possible exception of being a good “communist organizer” and “trying to ruin this country.”
42. JF: I you teach something for 12 years I think most people would consider you an expert. The only reason there you claim there is no record is because you chose to discount any record you come across that does not fit with your idea. What is wrong with the record kept by the University of Chicago, by the way this is where the Federalist Society came from, a very conservative organization. If you do not trust a conservative school i do not know what you would trust. Let me posit this then, what kind of material would be persuasive to you?
Brian N – So many things to address.
Constitution does not allow for revolution. – Um, yes it does. That’s what the Bill of Rights was about. The States would grant no authority to the Federal government, unless these sureties were in place. The Federal gvoernment loses all authority, if it obviates these articles.
Further, a couple States still have the right to secede. Texas and Maine. This was a condition of their joining the Union.
Cannot teach Constitutional Law without a love of the Constitution. – Well, no. The Devil can quote scripture, too. If you hate it, you have to understand its intricacies to overthrow it. Four of the Justices of the SCOTUS are like him. They believe the Constitution is a living document, subject to reinterpretation in view of the current times, rather than an absolute rendering of the Law. To them, the law is flexible, not rigid.
One instance of how has Obama violated the Constitution? – Takeover of GM and Chrysler. All the primary debtholders were completely pushed aside. Legally, these people are supposed to be first in line to get repaid; absolutely before anyone else! They passed, and Obama executed, an ex-post facto law. It was a clear violation of the Constitution. He circumvented the bankruptcy courts and the laws pertaining thereto. It also violated the Fifth article of the Bill of Rights, the Right to Property. He simply seized the debtholders wealth, nationalized it.
How about his 39 Czars? Yes, I know others used Czars, including Reagan’s 3. It was wrong for them to do, too. There is a reason Cabinet heads are approved by the Senate. The Czars are extra-Constitutional; a way to usurp Legislative authority.
As for a military presence around the world, It’s why they created a Navy. When the Revolution started, we had 25 capital ships as compared to the English 625 ships. We were outnumbered 25:1. Still, our Navy rampaged around the world. We sailed into Far East ports and burned British capital ships. They couldn’t conceive that we would do such a thing, that we would go on offense. We were supposed to huddle fearfully in our ports. It’s also why we created the Marine Corps. If it were just a matter of territorial defense, we would only need an Army and a coastal Navy.
“Provide for the common defense”, as written in the Preamble, does not limit our military. It does NOT say, “Provide for territorial defense”. What is NOT said is just as important as is what IS said. If they had meant something else, they would have worded it another way. They were very careful in limiting where they thought limits were needed.
Brian N.
‘I found two articles Obama contributed too. NOVEMBER, 1989, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 18795 and May, 1989, 69 B.U.L. Rev. 695, 16887′
Not the same as authoring, or writing. You can contribute to a law review article doing no more than researching references for the author aand even as little as checking footnotes.
The first cite you use in comment 39# is Lawrence Tribe’s nonsensical attempt to create an analogy between Einstein’s Relativity Theory and constitutional law. In a nutshell, Tribe’s argument was that interpreting the tenets of constitutional law is not immutable and could take some guidance from the uncertainty of modern physics. It’s the living document argument dressed up in scientific lingo and of no more intellectual validity or interest than if a physicist had written an article comparing quarks to tort lawyers. Had it not been Tribe, it would have been laughed out of the submission process.
The second cite is not from the Harvard Law Review, but from the BU Law Review. Across the Charles River from Harvard. Obama is again listed as a contributor only to an article by David Rosenberg.
So neither of your cites are really meaningful for buttressing Obama academic credentials.
Brian N – One last thing, and the most important, I direct your attention to the 9th Article of the Bill of Rights. “The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.”
It means that other rights exist. The Bill is not meant to limit those rights; to declare that these are the only rights we have as citizens. This directs us back to the Declaration of Independence. There are other rights, not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The right to overthrow an oppressive regime, to engage in revolution to re-establish the Constitution as the Supreme Law, is clear.
So, yes, we do have the right to take the usurpers out and hang them, if it comes to that. We have to take out the ammo box, in order to take back the ballot box, for example. If the elections become so crooked, then it is our duty to do what must be done to secure our freedoms.
Obama not having the Black Panthers members, who intimidated voters, prosecuted was a terrible affront, and a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Obama supports Card Check. He is indifferent to the attempts by Congress to circumvent the parliamentary rules: the abuse of the reconciliation process; and this “deem to have passed” outright violation of the Constitution. He only cares that it passes. He has no regard for the Constitution. None.
“The Constitution is a bill of negative rights. It tells what the government can’t do to you. It doesn’t tell what the government must do for you.” – Obama
Well, yes, that’s the point. It’s a feature, not a bug!
@41: I have spent 37 years as a University Professor and Administrator, and the link you gave and the information it contains proves nothing. The guy is an incompetent “community organizer” with a very low IQ, period. Nothing more. I’m not surprised a bit he has sealed off all his records.
Brian N
Thanks for pointing out that Barry is knowledgeable about the Constitution since it helps ensure that people aren’t deluding themselves that he may be acting based on insufficient knowledge. His depth of knowledge means that the minute he and his followers enact any law that is unconstitutional they are not guilty of ignorance, but rather they are guilty premeditated of treason. I’m sure, though, that finding the bill they may pass to be unconstitutional will not lead to their being tried for treason. I do, however, think that the majority of the population will be quite sure that Barry has violated the Constitution whether their opinion passes tests legal professors might require in order to press charges.
We’ll soon be finding out whether the will of the people actually makes any difference to their representatives. If not, then there may be precious few legal opinions that matter to the majority who will have been told in no uncertain terms that the will of the people doesn’t matter.
Regards
#43 Brian N – No, Obama was not Editor of Harvard Law Review. He was President of Harvard Law Review. There is a vast difference. President is ceremonial. Editor does the work. The actual editor noted that Obama was rarely seen, breezing in and out, time-to-time.
#41 Brian N – You assert that he has to be smart to have graduated Magna cum Laude. There is no evidence that he did, indeed, do this; only assertions that he did. He refused to release his school records. Furthermore, the idea that he did get good grades because he’s smart ignores the obvious fact of Patronage.
All signs point to Affirmative action. His grades prior to Law School 2.5 in H.S. and 2.75 in college. He was a C+ student. Suddenly, he’s Magna cum Laude in Law? Really? You believe that? C’s to A’s after the material got tougher, not easier? Make it easy for me, just how gullible are you?
As for teaching 12 years making you an expert… Seriously? Lots of bad teachers out there. He was an adjunct professor, not a full one… in Chicago, the land of political influence!
It all looks good on the surface, but when you go to hire someone and start to scrutinize things, it all falls apart. The resume is clearly padded. His is a thin veneer of credibility for the credulous. The press never scrutinized him, so we got an incompetent President. His lack of ability as President is just so glaring!
However, keep defending him. You are attempting to defend the indefensible. It just exposes your own gullibility.
‘“The Constitution is a bill of negative rights. It tells what the government can’t do to you. It doesn’t tell what the government must do for you.” – Obama’
Not so. The 2nd Amendment, for example, notes that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The whole pupose of government, as defined in the founding document of this nation (the Declaration of Independence), is to secure the rights of the governed. Government has no other function. That’s it.
Therefore, the government has an obligation to make sure that the right to keep and bear arms is not infringed. If it fails to secure this right (or any other) then we have a right to alter or abolish the government…which we should have done long ago, in my opinion.
And, the idea that wee lil’ Barry, the little boy who would be president, is an expert on the Constitution is a lot of hooey. I heard him holding forth on the issue of habeas corpus…and he didn’t have the slightest idea what he was talking about.
‘Obama, a former senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, cited “that principle of habeas corpus, that a state can’t just hold you for any reason without charging you and without giving you any kind of due process — that’s the essence of who we are. I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday.”’
Apparently our Moron-in-Chief is blissfully unaware that Axis war criminals were denied access to the U.S. courts, and when they attempted to secure a writ of habeas corpus from said courts, were flatly denied.
In Hirota v. MacArthur, the SCOTUS said…
“1. The military tribunal set up in Japan by General MacArthur as the agent of the Allied Powers is not a tribunal of the United States, and the courts of the United States have no power or authority to review, affirm, set aside, or annul the judgments and sentences imposed by it on these petitioners, all of whom are residents and citizens of Japan. P. 338 U. S. 198.”
“2. For this reason, their motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied. P. 338 U. S. 198.”
And, by citing the post-war trials of Axis war criminals in a fatuous attempt to claim that captured foreign terrorists have a right to habeas corpus, Barack Obama is showing that he is what he is…an ignorant ass.
@41. Brian N: – here is your link …
Sorry, sport. That link provides no evidence whatsoever that BHO ever successfully passed a graduate level course in Constitutional Law.
- Neither of those things happen if you do not have satisfactory grades in your 1L Constitutional law class.
Really? According to whom? You? Please. Don’t make me giggle.
Do you have a copy of BHO’s transcript handy? Do you know for a fact that his attendance in or completion of that course wasn’t simply waived? No, you don’t. You can’t. All you can do is ASSUME that a set of circumstantial rules were applied in his case. That’s the best you’ve got: naive assumption. And naive assumption does not support your idiotic assertion that BHO knows more about the Constitution than any given individual simply because he “taught” the subject. That level of gullibility would be funny if it weren’t so sad (and so dangerous).
I’ve taken plenty of courses taught by adjunct faculty. I have taught as adjunct faculty. And I can tell you that an adjunct teaching position isn’t difficult to procure, especially if one has a Harvard Law pigskin to wave around – even if that pigskin was never really earned. Furthermore, an adjunct teaching position doesn’t require being better informed on the subject than anyone else – AT BEST all you need to be able to do is follow a lesson plan and work your way through a standard textbook.
Perhaps you can tell me which Constitutional Law class BHO was teaching when this picture was taken. I’m sure your crack Googling skills won’t let you down.
Meanwhile, speaking of things that “don’t happen”, ever, there are definitely things that don’t happen with respect to Harvard Law. Foremost among these is this: NO ONE is even considered, let alone ACCEPTED to Harvard with the sort of piss-poor grades BHO had achieved prior to his miraculous, immaculate ascension to law school. At Columbia, for instance, he didn’t even achieve minimal honors, nor has he ever been willing to talk about the experience. And as Marc points out above – suddenly he’s a MCL graduate from Harvard Law? This strains the very fabric of credibility, and you probably know it.
BHO’s academic record – that small part that is known – makes it abundantly clear he had affirmative action and/or inside assistance in getting accepted to HL ahead of more qualified candidates. There is no other possible explanation. That assistance would have followed him through the years and courses he took there, if only to maintain the appearance of propriety regarding his unlikely acceptance.
- to try and claim is not understand the constitution is a silly argument.
Really? If that’s what you think then you really aren’t thinking.
We already have clear evidence in hand that BHO must have had problems with Constitutional Law while at Harvard. He couldn’t possibly have passed a graduate level course in that subject. All we need to do is look at his record as POTUS over the past year. He has demonstrated beyond any doubt that he doesn’t understand the clear limitations that the Constitution places on government – especially the Executive. By his very actions, BHO has demonstrated that his only interest in Constitutional Law is the extent to which he can ignore it and get away with it.
- He has to be a really smart man to have graduated with those grades from Harvard Law.
You have no idea WHAT grades he received at HL. Again, you can only ASSUME based on what has been said or written about what the school put on his degree, which you take for granted, never actually having seen a copy. That’s all you’ve got.
Since we know BHO couldn’t possibly have even gotten ACCEPTED to HL based on his prior academic performance, we already have all the evidence we need right there to completely discount anything written on his Harvard diploma.
So in reality, no, he doesn’t have to be even passably smart to have allegedly graduated MCL from HL.
In case you’re wondering, the vapid, fawning credulity you exhibit in your posts is the main reason no serious person can take any of your naive drivel seriously. Like most leftist trolls, your comments scream useful idiot and sycophant. If you ever had any critical thinking skills, they’ve been subsumed by your new role as an Obama shill.
Marc Malone – Thank you for your posts. Informative, professional and courteous to differing posters.
I can’t for the life of me comprehend why no politician, journalist etc., who has access to the President ask about his broken promises.
Specifically the tax increases in HR 3200 – 19
Tax increases on families making less than 250k – 7
The top fed tax rate affecting wages, self employment – 43.4%
Annual tax increase for every person in America – $165
There’s quite a few other areas as well.
In my 34 years, this is the most unbelievable Government power grab (next to GWB’s Social Security failed attempt) I recall. yes, the housing market bubble was huge, but this..
Coincidentally, if ever a nuclear bomb were to be detonated on U.S. soil we can be sure that that sitting president will be impossible to remove for quite some time.
And it’s time to stop tolerating atheists the same way racists are not tolerated. Society has seen fitting to basically and collectively say that racists have nothing worth contributing so long as they have such views. Atheism needs to take this form in the mind as well.
Re: Jason @35. It is not fear of atheists and agnostics that I am addressing, but how to persuade them of the soundness of a limited, federal government as the Founders envisioned it, how to persuade them that there are constants in human nature, that it is not malleable along perfectionist or utopian lines. There are other people who are religious or pious but cannot bring themselves to accept what to them seem to be the fabulous or mythological images of the Judaic and/or Christian scriptures. They have a positive regard for the absolute but are not ever to be persuaded that the Bible contains other than metaphorical truths. I am convinced that in order to restore our country to its principles–to win on the rough and tumble stage of partisan politics–these people, some of them prominent shapers of public opinion, must be persuaded of the abiding truths of America’s founding principles. What I am seeking is an argument that would convince them but would not require that they accept claims that only a singular brand of faith can credit.
@54 KevinButterfield. Your comment flies against the tolerant spirit of the founders. Racism, assuming you are not using the expansive definition popular on the Left, consists of actions, like hangings or Jim Crow laws; these are criminal and/or unconstitutional. Atheism is an opinion, and so those who pronounce it are protected by the First Amendment. You write as though you wish to establish a theocracy. The creek of the rack, the roar of the auto de fe, and the drip of sordid water in feotid dungeons sound from the shadows of your thinking. You write as though you prefer Iran to America.
Just so you know you are quoting the Declaration of Independence, which is different from the Constitution. In case you misunderstood when I said IN THE CONSTITUTION.
I tend to think that the Declaration of Independence is still more important than the Constitution since it states the goals of what had to become the United States and of its future Constitution. That things who cannot go into a Constutution, whose goal is organizing the state must go into other more fundamental documents like the Declaration of Indepence in the United Sates or the Declaration of Droits de l’Homme in France who btw enumerates “résistance à l’opression” as one of the four fundamental human rights.
Anyway I tend to to trust Abraham Lincoln far more over Constitutional matters than a dime a dozen junior law teacher, even assumming that he wasn’t hired due to affirmative aciton.
To 56. , I say, not so. The belief in God does not induce, in itself, any religious doctrine or practice. The devil believes in God, does he not, and would you say that that would mean the devil is practicing some kind of religion on belief alone, by default? You might try to think something like concerning Satan worship, and surely I don’t know the devil’s role in that, but it surely is not founded upon his belief in God. It is more like his rejection of God, and, hmm, sounds a little like atheism. You should try to understand that there IS a difference between Faith and Belief. Belief induces no action. (And for that matter, it is why the Bible says that Faith without works is dead. But that is to go into theology.)
You might say that my position forces everyone to either accept God or not by default. And you would be right, but the case is that the Constitution protects anyone from having to make this choice by any persuasion or force of the government. And, therefore, nobody’s rights have been infringed, which is the only deciding factor in accounting for justice. Also, note that we are not at liberty to wish away our nation’s history and the supreme documents that address America’s acceptance of a Providential Creator. Freedom of Religion is all about NOT being able to force anyone to practice any religion. It is not Freedom FROM religion.
Think of this. How can you say that all men deserve equal rights without conceding the existence of a Supreme Creator? Any other way to assume such rights becomes arbitrary. Based on man. Men that change. Perhaps, in the future, if we stay this ungodly course, Christians will be seen as impediments to the evolution of man? Or are we already there? It is sad to think that Christians had the foresight to establish the most fair government in the world, and are now being squeezed out by the false belief that God, or the belief in God, is tyrannical. Basing our natural rights on Supreme Authority is the only fair way for men to have government.
Now, think of this. If secularism is the default position of the U.S. (if Freedom of Religion really means that the government must reject all religious symbol and acknowledgment, and despite the will of the people) then Atheism becomes the default belief system. You see, there is no neutrality before God, which is why to accept any framework that does not acknowledge that man’s natural rights are derived from a creator will inescapably lead in the other direction. Atheism. And that is myopic. Close-minded.
@58 I am afraid that I cannot make much sense of your post. I have no confidence that there is such a thing as the Devil, if you mean an actual individual that wills nothing but evil. The whole image strikes me as a metaphor for the undeniable fact that we all fail to act in full accordance with our ideal of the good, no matter how each may conceive of it, and that sometimes our propensity to do evil becomes savage and obsessive.
In the Job story Satan makes a wager with God. In the Christian gospels, he tries to tempt Christ. These would indicate that the figure affirms the existence of God, unlike the atheist, who, sometimes with a shrug of indifference, sometimes more militantly, denies it.
But we are distracting ourselves from the political issues: to reiterate, atheism is an opinion and its expression, caeteris paribus, is protected by the First Amendment the founders added to the Constitution. In this respect, your comparison with racism fails.
A belief in the existence of a Supreme Creator, imagined as a kind of ultimate potter, that is, as a kind of person, is not necessary for the belief in objective rights. I shall mention the philosophies of Aristotle and Hegel. If you request, I shall explicate a bit, but for now I refer you to the former’s Nicomachean Ethics and the latter’s Philosophy of Right. These guide me personally, but I observe that not many Americans are familiar with them or wish to become so. In fact, Hegel has been so mischaracterized as a proto-Marxist that Americans tend to dislike him. I’ll concede that for many people, belief in personal God is what turns their minds to first things and the rights of man; however, I still contend that in order to turn the political process back to the founding principles, some argument must be made that does not appeal to this kind of belief. I have my own convictions in this regard, but, again, I am looking for a line of reasoning that may convince those who neither accept the supernatural doctrines of Judaism or Christianity nor are persuaded by Aristotelian teleological theories or the notions of Sittlichkeit and Geist.
A belief in the existence of a Supreme Creator, imagined as a kind of ultimate potter, that is, as a kind of person, is not necessary for the belief in objective rights.
One of the superiorities of the US concept over the French one is that in America men have rights endowed by their Creator so the State is merely the steward of those rights: it has duties twoards the citzens not the opposite.
In the French Declaration des Droits de l’Homme it is the state who endows those rights and it can withdraw them. In fact it already does in the Declaration since the right of rebellion in Article II is voided by Article III who states that Resisting arrest makes you guilty. Let’s notice that a Declaration of Rights is a strange place for such provision and also that the article introduces no restriction. Let’s also remind that well before Robespierre and the Terreur the French Revolution had introduced a model where the citizen was naked in front of the state: for instance litigations between the administration and the citizens were judged by the administration itself.
That is what happens whe n rights are granted by the state instead of by the Creator.
Mr. Hawkins correctly notes that George C. Scott mentioned “real Americans” in the opening scenes of the 1970 film “Patton.” But a more authoritative figure was the General himself, George S. Patton. He used the term on multiple occasions. In fact, the oppening speech in the movie was a (somewhat sanitized) version of Patton’s standard stump speech that he gave many times in England before the invasion of Normandy. It was his way of firing up the troops, and it was very effective. The troops loved it and they loved him for it.
I think people today are longing for some of that same clarity. I can only imagine what Patton would have to say about political correctness.
Re JFM @60. Not everybody would agree that there are only two possible sources of rights, either the State or a deliberating Creator, a “jealous god,” as portrayed in the Judaeo-Christian scriptures. Randians, for example, derive their notions of liberty and capitalism from the “nature of the mind of man,” taking one component of Aristotelian thought. But their notion of mind is extremely individualistic and ignores that strain of Aristotle that recognizes man as a “political animal.”
And it is in that political realm, which in a free country is not identical with state* dictates, that the effort to return to our Constitutional roots will either succeed or fail. Some citizens will find the path to that return in a fundamentalist interpretation of the traditional religions, but not a sufficient number, I ween, to counter the leftist rulers and intellectuals and the busloads of resentful, “the world owes me a living” clients they stuff into the polling booths.
________
“State” here means the contemporary organization of the government, not the patriotic awareness that leads individuals obey objective law and to put aside their particular pursuits when their country is in danger. This latter frame of mind is what Hegel himself meant by the State, which was composed of the family and civil society (roughly, the marketplace and “corporate” institutions like churches and guilds) as well.