A Must Read...

Judge Roy Moore is the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was forcibly removed from office for refusing to take down a monument to the Ten Commandments that he placed in the rotunda of the Supreme Court building. Judge Moore believed that he was being forced to violate his oath of office which requires him to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God as the sovereign source of law and liberty in the United States. As such, he was thrown out of office by a committee of federal judges. That's the Reader's Digest version.

Judge Moore is now a weekly writer for Worldnetdaily.com, my favorite news website. Please check out Judge Moore's introductory column, and keep him in mind for your weekly reading list.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51226

Quick Hitt: The First Bush Veto

The first Bush veto is a momentous occasion. As a fiscal conservative I wish Bush would have pulled out his veto pen years ago to help stem the tide of runaway government spending, but Bush never campaigned as a small government conservative concerned with ballooning budget deficits, so I can't say he pulled a "gotcha". He's just been a disappointment on that front. However, vetoing what many (myself included) believe to be murder in the form of destroying human embryos to harvest embryonic stem cells was a moral stand for which I am proud to have George W. Bush as our president today. I can't always say that. Bush is a very confusing president. His strength on moral issues like this one should be a source of national pride for everyone, but his failings in securing the border and helping shovel unimaginable debt on our children and grandchildren with government-financed entitlement programs like the prescription drug bill serve only to make many of us scratch our heads. Regardless of that, today is a day that stands tall on the presidential record of George W. Bush. He is the first president to ever even allow federal funding of any kind on embryonic stem cell research (those that existed before he took office, essentially), but his moral clarity in drawing the ethical line where he did today is something for which I am extremely grateful.

I would encourage everyone to read President Bush's full, eloquent remarks to understand today's veto: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODVlZWQwYzViMWVhMTRkODhiOTI4NmU1YzJlNmVlNmU

The Blood on Bill Clinton's Hands

Bill Clinton's hands are dirty, and not just from his insatiable lust for interns. Our ex-president extraordinaire is guilty of much, much more than marital infidelity. His concern for poll numbers and reelection in 1996 guided much of his governing philosophy, but it was ultimately his inaction in the face of Islamic terror and his concern for a legacy that will prove to be the unremovable stains (no pun intended) in the pages of history books yet to be written.

1993 proved to be a defining year in the Clinton presidency for reasons which one should not be proud. First, in February, the World Trade Center suffered its first attack at the hands of Islamic terrorists, an attack that was unsuccessful in its ultimate aim to topple the Towers but took the lives of 6 people and injured well over 1,000 more. We know now that history would repeat itself just eight short years later. The second event took place on the White House lawn in September, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin shook hands with the father of Arab terrorism, Yassir Arafat, as a sign of "progress" in the "peace process". You see, Bill Clinton dusted off Arafat as a "peace partner" in hopes of creating said legacy, to be the man who brokered the "peace" between the Israelis and Palestinians. Imagine the hubris. The third event is the one known as Black Hawk Down, yet another attack on America by Islamic radicals, this one in Mogadishu. Eighteen elite U.S. special forces soldiers were butchered and dragged through the streets of Somalia when weak-kneed President Clinton refused to provide the air support he promised before the mission. This is a familiar refrain that would lead to the unimaginable atrocities we suffered together on September 11, 2001.

The blood on Bill Clinton's hands ultimately comes from one of two things: gross incompetence that led to inaction, or as mentioned before, his quest for a legacy. Al Qaeda was a group not know to many Americans (myself included) before 9/11, but they were very well known to our government. Following the attack on the World Trade Center and the Black Hawk Down incident, Al Qaeda struck again in 1995 when they destroyed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Nineteen American soldiers were killed. In 1998, the American Embassies in both Kenya and Tanzania were bombed and destroyed by Al Qaeda operatives. In Kenya, the death toll reached 213 with over 4500 injured and in Tanzania there were 11 killed, with 85 injured. In 2000, the USS Cole was attacked in the harbor waters of Yemen by Al Qaeda operatives, killing 17 U.S. sailors. At this point I should also mention the downing of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, which appears by all reasonable analysis to have been shot down by a missle despite the claims of the Clinton-led cover-up conspiracy. For more on this, read the book "First Strike" by Jack Cashill and James Sanders, which points to an Al Qaeda connection.

At this point we should recount the response effected by Bill Clinton to these acts of war against the United States of America: essentially nothing except tough talk followed by inaction, until August 20, 1998 when Clinton authorized a Tomahawk cruise missile attack against the Sudan, targeting a suspected Al Qaeda training camp and a pharmeceutical facility best known for making children's aspirin. There can be absolutely no doubt that Clinton's inaction in the continuing face of Al Qaeda terrorism emboldened this enemy to the point of launching a major assault against our homeland on 9/11. President Clinton chose to treat much of the growing Al Qaeda threat (primarily the first attack on the Twin Towers) as a law enforcement problem as opposed to the clear acts of war that they were. An attack on our homeland, attacks against US Embassies, military attacks against our soldiers, the possible downing of a US airliner are all acts of war against our nation. Only someone as ineffectual as Bill Clinton could perceive and treat these acts as something our local police department should be dealing with, as opposed to the United States military!

It would truly take me another four or five paragraphs to recant the acts of war directed against the Israeli people by Yassir Arafat after the Oslo Accords in 1993. President Clinton saw fit to consistently tie the hands of the Israeli military response effort, demanding a path to peace and decrying the so-called cycle of violence. In 2000, after Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat and the Palestinians 98% of what they were demanding regarding statehood (including half of Jerusalem!), Arafat stormed out of the room and launched a horrific war of homicide bombings against Israeli civilians that continued until Ariel Sharon crushed this effort some 3 - 4 years later. In this, as in the case of the growing Al Qaeda threat against America, Bill Clinton was not only complict but directly responsible for the murdering of many, many civilians, only in this context they were Israeli and not American (although many American citizens were killed in this terror war against Israel).

The lust for a legacy and the gross incompetence and inaction of William Jefferson Clinton was responsible for the loss of many lives of citizens of many nations around the world, but primarily American and Israeli lives. On 9/11, this gross incompetence came to our shores a second and much more lethal time. There are difficult questions to be asked of the Bush Administration and why the threat of Al Qaeda didn't seem to be taken with a greater sense of impending urgency. But this blog is focused squarely on the ineffectiveness of President Clinton, which led to Al Qaeda's bravado to even consider attempting an attack of that magnitude against our homeland. Yes, let it be said that September 11, 2001 lies at the feet of Bill Clinton, much as the blood of many has dried on his hands.

America and Israel: The West's Last, Best Hope

Israel has finally been forced to respond to the ongoing onslaught against her people by Hezbollah and Hamas after the latest outrage, the murder and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers within Israel's sovereign borders. I wasn't sure that Ehud Olmert was capable of unleashing the might of the IDF after running on Ariel Sharon's dovish platform of unilateral withdrawl from the Gaza Strip but, thankfully, he has proven me wrong and is showing the necessary strength to help ensure Israel's survival.

I believe at this point a little bit of history is in order. In 1965, the PLO was formed and declared that the destruction of Israel was it's primary goal. Notice, they didn't say that forming a sovereign nation of their own was their primary goal. Also notice that the year is 1965, which was two years before the Six Day War, the battle in 1967 where Israel conquered Gaza and the West Bank in order to create defensible borders. Let's all remember that in war, when one side starts the war (as the Arab world did in 1967) and loses, they lose territory as the Arab world did with Gaza and the West Bank. It's important to remember that two-year difference because for decades we've been sold the stale bill of goods that it was the fact that Israel was in possession of "occupied territories" that the Palestinians waged their decades-long war against the Israeli people. This, obviously, is a bald-faced lie as the PLO declared their intention to destroy Israel before Israel had set foot in Gaza or the West Bank in response to Arab aggression.

There are many who suggest that Israel's ongoing struggle against Islamic fascism has nothing to do with the larger war against Islamic fascism that we in America are fighting today. This is a very simplistic and naive view of the reality that America and Israel stand side-by-side in the battle to save Western civilization from the potential clutches of Islamic barbarism. What Newt Gingrich has described as World War III is escalating on many fronts, but the primary front has always been the tiny state of Israel.

The alliance of the United States and Israel has more than strategic and geopolitical benefits. As many of us believe the United States to be born of a providential beginning, we also understand the old biblical passage that those who bless the Jews will be blessed, and those who curse the Jews will be cursed. America's divine role in this world is inescapably linked to its compassion for the Jewish people dating back to the founding of the republic. And now, since 1948, America's divine role is linked to its (usually) unwavering support of the state of Israel.

I've remarked in past postings that there were many reasons why I voted for George W. Bush in 2004. As a Jew, one of those reasons was President Bush's unflinching support of Israel. There can be no doubt that Israel has never had a better friend to occupy the White House than George W. Bush. Unlike Bill Clinton who had the terrorist Yassir Arafat to the White House more than any other foreign "leader", George W. Bush severed ties with the father of Arab terrorism and placed responsibility (there's that word again) at the feet of Arafat and the Palestinian people before placing demands on the Israelis. Bush understands that terrorism, especially this form of Islamic fascism, cannot be appeased and cannot be excused.

Staring in the face the threat of worldwide domination by this virulent strain of radical, totalitarian Islam (and that IS their goal, despite what some say), we must know that our only chance of survival is strength. As Ronald Reagan put it, we must achieve peace through strength. It's a sad reality that our enemy only understands the language of violence, but our choice is clear. We must beat them into submission or we will be beaten into submission, or killed. Those are our options. At the head of this fight stand two nations, side by side, linked together by a common destiny. America and Israel share in this fight against Islamic fascism and it's imperative that the American people, and the people of the entire world, come to understand this before it's too late. We should all pray that the continuing terrorist assault against Israel does not find reward by the international community. We should also pray that this assault provides the world with the backbone needed to face what we're up against. We should pray that the alliance of America and Israel remains healthy and strong. We should pray for America and Israel's success in this war, as we are the two nations primarily standing between the world and armageddon. We should pray for the last, best hope for western civilization.

The Perception of Liberty

"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."

This piece of the Declaration of Independence articulates noble ideals. I believe it was de Tocqueville (I could be mistaken) that commented on the fact that the American founders had solved with great ease a problem that had plagued past architects of government. They recognized the universal truth that rights come from a Creator and not from government. It's a unique, interesting, and American idea. If those rights that are unalienable come from a Creator they can never be taken away or altered. The Declaration then goes on to speak of government being legitimate only based upon the consent of the governed, which dovetails nicely with the idea of unalienable rights. However, if those rights come from government they are not unalienable and can be taken away by the sheer brute force of governmental coercion. This is an idea the American founders rejected wholeheartedly. As well, it articulates those rights that are considered to be unalienable: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In reading this profound piece of our history I was captured most by the idea of liberty. What is liberty? There are competing forces in today's America as to what defines liberty. John Edwards chose to articulate the idea of there being two Americas during the 2004 presidential campaign: red states and blue states. The repulsive implication of that idea went unstated but was perfectly obvious to many: red state America is bad, blue state America is good and virtuous. Red state America stands between us and liberty, and blue state America is the path to true, unbridled freedom. I see it differently. I see one America, but I see two visions competing for the future of America: one vision is that of our Founders, the idea of America as a shining city on a hill, of a nation where everyone is treated equally under the law, the true essence of what Reagan referred to as ordered liberty; the second vision is what I think of as being a perception of liberty, where anything goes, and what is passed to our children as liberty is actually chaos and anarchy.

President Reagan spoke of ordered liberty, the idea that true liberty is that which flourishes through the confines of the Constitution. This is also a grand and noble idea, one that takes root in the beliefs of our Founders. John Adams wrote "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." The implication of Adams' statement is that American liberty derived from the Constitution must have its roots in something more solid than the whims of the day or the base impulse of humanity. The soil of Judeo-Christian philosophy and biblical-based morality is what allowed American liberty to take root. Ordered liberty is liberty that exists hand-in-hand with the Declaration's ideals of a Creator that has bestowed unalienable rights upon us all, but runs counter to the idea that "anything goes" or "if it feels good, do it." Human nature is prone to failure and sin. These are truths that some would rather not talk about. Our friends on the Left believe that humanity is essentially good and that human nature ultimately leads all to do good in this world. It is a noble and optimistic view, but one I have difficulty sharing when I see Muslim men flying airplanes into buildings. I believe, as many others do, that the uniquely American idea of ordered liberty is what has created such a good and benevolent society. Ordered liberty allows us to live as free men and women, but places responsibilities on us to conduct ourselves a certain way. It can be uncomfortable to talk about or think about the concept of responsibility in a much more profound way than paying the mortgage or car payment, but the very preservation of liberty depends upon it. In fact, it is the very idea that liberty has limits which allows liberty to flourish endlessly. The limits we have placed upon ourselves come in the form of the US Constitution and, despite the cries from liberals, from religion (specifically Christianity and Judaism).

The perception of liberty is something different. It begins in a gray area where something feels like ordered liberty but isn't. I'd put the unfettered access to pornography in this category. Yes, pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States and the capitalistic nature of our society allows for the free exchange of goods and services within the confines of the law. But the fact remains that pornography has damaging effects on society as a whole, on adults, and on children. As such, pornography lives in that gray area where free speech and the best interests of society collide. We all know that the foundation of the First Amendment is the freedom of speech, but the founders intended political speech to be the primary form of speech protected in the Constitution. I'd imagine they didn't anticipate hardcore porn finding comfort under the blanket of the First Amendment.

The perception of liberty continues past the gray area into areas of our lives that are accepted as normal behavior or made to seem like they SHOULD BE accepted as normal behavior. Abortion comes to mind immediately. Under the guise of "reproductive freedom" (here we're actually invoking the word freedom!) we've allowed our culture to become accepting of the fact that forty million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade. There is actual scientific proof that human life begins at conception. A unique genetic human being is formed at that moment but for a variety of reasons, whether it be said reproductive freedom, "the right to choose", some sort of (unfounded) concern that the majority of those aborted babies would have been chained to a life of poverty, birth control convenience, or whatever other reasons are provided, we've allowed ourselves to digest the idea that ending human life is the exercise of liberty! Nothing could be further from the truth. The preservation of all forms of human life is the ultimate expression of ordered liberty whereas the culture of death (abortion on demand, euthanasia) is very much a perception of liberty.

The idea of gay marriage is a perception of liberty. Marriage, throughout its entire 5,000 year history, has been the union of one man and one woman. Much like the word "mother" or "father" cannot be redefined, the word marriage cannot be redefined either. However, aside from that obvious point, we're told that there exists a fundamental denial of the rights of marriage to homosexual couples. This is simply not true. For every man and woman in America there exists a right to marry one person of the opposite sex. Constitutionally speaking this is absolute equality under the law and there is no denial of rights. Further, the state has a rational basis to define marriage as being the union of one man and one woman because society's essential building block is the nuclear family. Promoting the healthy family of a husband and wife to raise children furthers the best interests of society because it allows for the regeneration of that society. Moreover, every study that has ever been done shows irrefutably that children are significantly better off with a father and a mother, and not two dads or two moms. But now we're to be told that despite the fact that no rights are being denied to homosexuals, despite the fact that the state has a rational basis to define marriage as it has always been defined, and despite the fact that children (and there can be no greater good in society than protecting the interests and health of children) are better served with a mother and a father, that liberty is being denied because the overwhelming majority of the American people wish to preserve the 5,000 year old institution of marriage. This sort of thinking defines the perception of liberty.

Ordered liberty grounded in biblical morality and protected by the Constitution is the path to true freedom. I've written about the choices we have to make between living free or becoming slaves to our own government. We're fortunate to have at our hands the tools to be free: the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the bedrock of Judeo-Christian philosophy. John Edwards tried to sell the American people on the idea of two Americas, the red states and the blue states. I can only harken back to President Reagan, who put it best: "You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism." Let us continue Ronald Reagan's march toward ordered liberty and reject wholeheartedly the anarchy and chaos that serve as a perception of liberty which will lead us down to the ant heap of which he spoke.

ADDENDUM - 7/14/06: In response to the comments by "Anonymous" I felt it necessary to respond, but not as a comment below the article.

The idea that ordered liberty isn't flexible means "Anonymous" has completely missed the point. It's absolutely inconceiveable to suggest that liberty doesn't have limits. Liberty without limit is not liberty at all, but rather anarchy. Hence the coining of the phrase "ordered liberty", which refers to liberty within the confines of a constitutional structure. The mere presence of a constitutional structure does not imply or mean that liberty is inflexible or unable to adapt or change to meet the needs of present day society. It means that we view everything through the lens of "law", which flows from the Constitution. Law that does not flow from the Constitution (and there can be no debate that there are many laws passed that are unconstitutional regardless of whether we accept them or not) is illegitimate, and therefore does not fall within the confines of ordered liberty. The perception of liberty begins when we accept things that do not flow from the Constitution, but are told we should accept them as being legitimately born from the founding documents. I mentioned three specifically, one of which is certainly a gray area. I could go on and on to prove my point but I chose three to highlight the point I was looking to make.

To suggest that ordered liberty is somehow rigid and incapable of meeting the current times is facile. Ordered liberty provides us with every means necessary to meet the needs of our times. The founders had no concept of the internet or even telephones/cellphones when they penned the Fourth Amendment against illegal searches and seizures, but we manage to shape the Fourth Amendment to prevent unreasonable searches and allow reasonable ones within the confines of a constitutional structure as it relates to internet transactions or wiretapping. This is but one example to refute the claim that ordered liberty is inflexible.

The perception of liberty argument can come full circle, as "Anonymous" proves, to the discussion of how the Constitution is interpreted. I will make my argument about this in my next posting as it seems the logical next issue to debate.

The Imperial Presidency? How About the Imperial Supreme Court?

I have to say I've grown quite tired of the Bush-bashing nonsense. We've had to sit back and listen for the last few years now while liberals throw toxic epithets at our president (yes, I said OUR president), calling him a "dictator", "King George", "Nazi", "fascist", etc., etc., etc. This is disgraceful behavior no matter who is sitting in the White House. No president should be subjected to this sort of abject and unfounded name-calling. Criticize the man for his policies, but please check the "Nazi" business at the door. As a Jew I'm offended by that. As an American I'm repulsed by it. I voted for Bush in 2004 and not just because the other guy was and continues to be a traitor to his country. The reality is that NO president is perfect, and George W. Bush is no exception to that rule. He has failed his country in many ways big and small, a topic I will write about in the future. But he's no dictator, and the constitutional crisis we're all hearing about isn't rearing its ugly head because of an "imperial presidency". No, the constitutional crisis we face has been handed to us by the Supreme Court.

It's rather remarkable that the American people, a group cut from the cloth of revolutionaries, would sit back and accept the rulings of unelected, unaccountable judges that make sweeping pronoucements from up high on how we should live our lives. It's comforting, really, to know that the public accepts the concept of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. But the Supreme Court continues to overstep its authority and mask a furtherance of rule by men in the shroud of the Constitution, and thereby the rule of law. There can be no greater instance of this oligarchical attitude by the "Liberal 5" than the Hamdan decision, of which I commented on a few days back.

We face a constitutional crisis brought about by the Supreme Court's arrogant attitude toward the two elected branches of government and its disdain for the American people. Abortion on demand? Get your five votes on the Court and it's yours. Gay marriage? Same. Eminent domain? Hope you don't own any property because it's safer to rent right now. The list goes on. But the stark reality we face is this: at every turn the Supreme Court seeks to expand its jurisdiction over the American people and remove the decision-making authority from the two branches of government directly accountable to the public. But why?

Judges and lawyers believe themselves to be more enlightened than the "average" American, especially on matters of the Constitution. It's true that judges and lawyers now have a better understanding of Constitutional jurisprudence than the American people because judges and lawyers have been torturing the plain language of the Constitution for decades upon decades, perhaps even dating back to the early years of the Republic. But the Founders wrote the Constitution in very plain language for a reason, and that reason was to ensure that the people would understand the founding document of their new government to ensure that every American would be able to hold accountable those who would abuse their power. I would encourage you all to read this piece (http://www.tinyapps.org/not_yours_to_give.html) about Col. Davy Crockett and Horatio Bunce to get a sense of exactly what I'm referring to here.

The liberal judges on the Supreme Court (Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg and a teetering Kennedy) all believe themselves to be better than you and me, and that's why they force their liberal ideology down the collective throat of the American people. That's why they feel free to look to foreign courts and foreign law when making up the rules as they go along, despite the fact that the take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution itself. It's funny how you never see Scalia and Thomas (the jury is still out on Roberts and Alito) looking anywhere but to the Constitution to make decisions concerning the Constitution! It's because they are the two that bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, and why the liberals fear more judges like them being nominated to sit on the Supreme Court. I need only reference Judge Robert Bork here to prove my point. Judge Bork was considered by people of every political stripe to be the MOST knowledgeable and respected scholar on matters of the Constitution, but because he grounded his jurisprudence in the bedrock of originalism he was feared by liberals who could never let him sit on the Court. Hence Teddy Kennedy's unimaginable assault on Bork's character.

We face an ever-growing crisis that has now reached epic proportions that threatens to dissolve the Constitution's separation of powers and completely neuter the two elected (and therefore accountable) branches of our federal government, as well as destroy the republican form of government and federalist nature of the Republic that are guaranteed to us. The arrogance of the Supreme Court cannot continue unabated if we wish to remain a free people. The Constitution guarantees to us the ability to decide most of the hard questions of social policy through our elected representatives, but four members of our highest Court don't feel they can sit idly by while a bunch of hicks that live in the "red states" make decisions for themselves. The American people should be insulted, and we should be kicking down the doors of our representatives to make sure our voices are heard. Judges who violate the Constitution are accountable to the Congress. We should make it so. The imperial presidency? Ha! It's long past time to address the imperial Supreme Court.

Special Thanks to the Reagan's Children Blog

I have to deliver a very special thanks to the Reagan's Children Blog for linking The Rock of Liberty to their main page. If you've never visited Reagan's Children, click here: http://www.reaganchildren.com/serendipity/. Those who believe in Reagan's ideals as I do will be heartened to know that the next generation of freedom lovers is on the march!

Reflections on Independence Day 2006

Independence Day is a day I generally spend reflecting on what it means to be free, and to live in such a blessed land. That's right, I believe America to be blessed and to have a divine role in this world. I'd imagine the liberals are getting a bit uncomfortable right now but I'll let them off the hook here a bit. I touched yesterday on what I believe to be the American birthright of independence, and after spending the day enjoying the freedoms our great nation offers I realized even more how lucky we all are to be here despite the poisonous undercurrent in today's political environment. That's a small price to pay to be able to experience the day I had yesterday.

I sat at a beach in Marina del Rey, CA, after a delicious barbeque of chicken, sausage and hot dogs and watched the fireworks explode out on the horizon. What went through my mind were thoughts of our finest Americans, those that wear the uniform of the United States military, and the great hymns of our Republic. Maybe it's a little cheesy, but I sang to myself the words of "God Bless America", "America the Beautiful", and "The Star Spangled Banner". (I guess I'm not afraid to love my country and say it out loud.) To put it bluntly, as I sat on that beach last night I truly felt free. It was liberating and exhilarating.

I looked around at the hundreds of other people enjoying the fireworks and wondered what was going through their minds. Was it anything like what I was thinking? If I had to guess, probably not. Maybe a few understand what Independence Day is supposed to mean but I felt like we've lost touch with that much like we've lost touch with what Memorial Day stands for, and we only focus on the hamburgers and hot dogs and the fact that we don't have to go suffer through another day of work. We forget that without the freedom announced in the Declaration of Independence and secured by the Constitution we wouldn't be watching fireworks and grilling carcass. We'd likely be speaking German at this point in time.

My wish for this season of celebration is for everyone to remember what the Fourth of July actually means and to embrace it next year, God willing. Close to our thoughts during the celebration of our independence should be the bone-chilling reality of the enemy we're fighting in every corner of the world that seeks to destroy the United States and end our independence once and for all. As I said yesterday, each of us has the responsibility to ensure the survival and blossoming of freedom here at home. And let us not forget what's being sacrificed by our countrymen and countrywomen around the world to ensure the survival of the ideals put to paper in Philadelphia in 1776.

God bless.

A Must Read...

Enjoy this must-read from Alan Keyes on this Independence Day 2006:

http://www.renewamerica.us/news/060704declaration.htm


 

The American Birthright: Independence

In the hot summer of 1776, a group of men huddled in Independence Hall in the great city of Philadelphia put pen to the paper drafted by Thomas Jefferson that declared our independence from the British king. The city of Philadelphia would become known as the birthplace of liberty, much like George Washington would become known around the world as the "Father of freedom". In pledging their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, these great and wise men would, in that piece of parchment and the United States Constitution that would come in 1789, bequeath to their heirs the birthright to live as free men and women.

"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."

What does it mean to be independent? What does it mean to live free? Independence, as articulated best by George Washington, the greatest American of all, is remaining free of permanent foreign entanglements. Jefferson said that we should have good and peaceful relations with all nations but permanent alliances with none. Today, we're told by the elite around the world that we should strive to be interdependent, that the world is shrinking because of technology. Yes, I suppose that's true. One can fly around the world in no time at all, whereas during the times of our Founding Fathers it would take an unthinkable amount of time to travel just across the continental United States. Those that tell us we should strive for interdependence use a clever turn of phrase to tell us that the American ideal of independence, that thing for which our Founding Fathers fought and died, is an outdated concept that has no place in today's world. What they're really telling us, even though like with everything else they're too afraid to say it clearly and truthfully, is that we should strive to be dependent. Because isn't that what interdependence really is?

The idea of American INTERdependence is anathema to freedom lovers that still shape the overwhelming majority of the public. What those elites really want is to have global governance paid for by you and me, the American people. In placing this concept of interdependence above liberty, the old cliche that dates back to our founding rings truer than ever: NO taxation without representation. What would America look like if our destiny is left to the machinations of Third World despots? You see, the American republican system of governance provides for direct representation of constituents in order to ensure that power always resides closely to the hands of those who ultimately exercise it: the people. But the New World Order being forced upon us by the Democratic Party and many so-called Republicans is quite different than the vision of our Founders. It is, to be blunt, a direct assault on both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. And we must not stand for it.

"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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Just powers, as the Declaration states, are derived from the consent of the governed. At its essence, the Declaration of Independence not only breaks the political bands between these United States and Great Britain. It places responsibility of freedom and self-government, the "American experiment" as it's often called, in the hands of the American people. THAT is the basic essence of independence: taking responsibility. It is our choice alone to live free or whether to allow those who would sell American independence off for campaign cash to determine our destiny. The choice is ours. The responsibility to carry the torch of freedom is ours alone. That is why Lincoln referred to our great nation as the last, best hope on Earth.

In sum, the Founding Fathers' vision for America is not outdated and we should be ready to challenge at any and every turn those that say that it is. We know this because there are millions of people who share their belief that the destiny of America is unique and that the highest ideals that we can strive for are liberty and independence. Yes, the world is shrinking. But that doesn't mean there isn't room for those ideals of liberty and independence. On that hot summer day 230 years ago, those ideals were articlated for all of mankind in the Declaration of Independence. So today on America's birthday, on our Independence Day, when you light your barbeque and set off your fireworks make sure to remember why you have the day off.  It's to celebrate that miracle that took place in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.  On that day our birthright was given to us in written word. Now it is up to each of us to exercise the responsibility it takes to live free and independent. I believe we’re up to the task because, as Reagan said, we are Americans.

Happy Independence Day, America.