ELVISNIXON.COM

Consent, Revolution, God and Honor

elvisnixon.com — 2012-05-22T07:03:00Z

Besides Equality and Natural Rights (discussed last post), the ideas or principles that comprise the American theory of government, i.e., the proper conceptual building blocks for righteous government are Consent, Revolution, God and Honor. Consent is needed to form legitimate government. The Declaration of Independence says that to secure the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Indeed, people must join to form governments to secure all their natural rights, but governments do not derive unlimited powers to perform that function! Just powers are only those consented to by the people. The Founders believed that a republic was that form of government that best reflected consent, in that, all powers are derived directly or indirectly from the great body of the people” (The Federalist 39). I have observed, however, that consent may be measured differently from culture to culture--and not always democratically. Some people in the world don’t even value their vote. All I can say is that we Americans possess a political culture and explicit heritage that measures consent exclusively through democratic republican means. Notwithstanding, consent in and of itself is not the sole standard of legitimacy or goodness. The people do not have the right to consent to unjust powers. According to Thomas G. West and Douglas A. Jeffrey, the Founders would tell us we cannot rightly consent to powers of government that violate the unalienable rights of individuals. Consider then that the people are not supreme to the standard of Right per se. The standard of Right would be God’s province. Democratic majorities may not redefine what is right. The inalienable rights are set for all time by Nature and Nature’s God, and they are written and fixed in our founding documents. The Founders would not recognize any such thing as a “living” Constitution. They would impeach half our judges today for suggesting it.

Hence the real challenge of self-government: people must be of such character that they will only give their consent to good and just measures. And this extends to establishing government and to operating it. The Founders essentially took care of establishing a just government with the people of the first generation. They made a “social compact” with fellow citizens, and I would argue that they covenanted not only with each other but with God as their Witness and Gaurantor. But that still leaves the ongoing matter of consent in the operation of government. That’s something you should be doing on a regular basis, at least by casting your informed ballot on election day. But no matter what ballot initiative you consent to, you always retain the unalienable right to liberty and may never delegate to the government permanently. In a sense, the government rests on a renewable source of consent, which you give it through participation, acquiescence or peaceful protest.

The right to Revolution naturally follows. West and Jeffrey again: “Government exists to protect natural rights, and government derives its just powers from consent. If it is not doing this, the people should get rid of it and set up a new one. [Indeed], the right to revolution is reflected in the early American conviction that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and to govern themselves in all local matters through local governments close to the people.” Of course, the right to revolution doesn’t mean it is right or good to overthrow government at the drop of a hat. If government is doing a tolerably good and decent job, you put up with its shortcomings and mistakes. If the system remains open to a redress of grievances, you continue to participate. The Declaration says, “Prudence . . . will dictate that governments . . . should not be changed for light and transient causes.” Prudence is what we might also call “horse sense.” Revolution is dangerous--it throws men back into the state of nature, where destructive passions and violence may become uncontrolled. For that reason secession is probably the preferential form of revolution, should revolution ever be justified in America.

Additionally, the Founders placed God and Honor ahead of narrow self-interest when they established the government. They commended us to do the same in its ongoing operation. The Declaration says that when a people are subjected to a long train of abuses aiming at absolute despotism, it isn’t only their right-- “it is their duty,” to change the government. The duty is higher than one’s own personal survival or selfish interest. The Founders’ sense of honor taught them that they must be ready to sacrifice their lives and property for the sake of their duty. In order to establish and preserve free government, they pledged their lives, fortunes, and “sacred honor.” In the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking up Arms (1775), Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson wrote: “We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we have received from our gallant ancestors. . . .” It was a notion behind much Southern chivalry before and during the War Between the States, i.e., the Founders’ conviction that political slavery and dishonor are worse even than death. As honor is a keen sense of right and wrong, it implies integrity and an adherence to right action or principles above else. In this view, people are legitimately supreme to government when it comes to upholding standards of Right. For standards of Right on earth become a nexus ultimately, where God and the individual meet in man’s conscience. Government may not arrogate to itself the legitimate power to speak for any individual at this level of communion or duty. There is no collective conscience and no collective Soul. One person at a time may redefine what is right, if and when government gets it terribly wrong. The inalienable rights are set for all time by Nature and Nature’s God. We end then where we started, with the Creator. Indeed, there are four distinct references to God in the Declaration of Independence. To the Founders, separation of church and state was meant to prevent a single religious sect from becoming official religion for the whole country. But the principles of this nation in fact constitute religious doctrine, the Declaration’s own theology--with God as author of Law and Source of rights for mankind, eternal and unalienable on earth as it is in Heaven.

________________________Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he serves as State Director of the Republican freedom Coalition (RFC) and is currently running for U. S. Congress (TX-District 25 in the Republican Primary. He is also author of two books, Horse Sense for the New Millennium (2011), and The Nexus of Faith and Freedom (2012). Both books are available on-line at http://www.wesriddle,net/ and from fine bookstores everywhere. Email: Wes@WesRiddle.com.

Equality and Natural Rights

elvisnixon.com — 2012-05-21T19:56:18Z

The principles of America’s founding amount to a remarkable and radical departure from government, as practiced for centuries prior to the American Revolution. To be sure, a tradition is tied to the theory and to the men responsible. We are, however, quite remarkable as a nation today, because the Founders were indeed radical in their definition of liberty and their uncompromising demand for freedom. The theory of America’s founding may be said to be embodied in the Declaration of Independence. If anyone reads it, he or she finds that it is stated rather clearly, not hard to understand unless you’re a modern day bureaucrat or store bought politician. What comes as shock and discouragement to many, is the realization that it is no longer the dominant theory in our government or in American politics. A new political theory arose during the Progressive Era, which came to dominate outright during the 1960s. Popular and powerful today, it has already changed our government and society and now threatens remaining liberty. But let action proceed first from understanding, and to understand what’s happened, we should review the theory of America’s founding. The material that follows will borrow heavily from work by Thomas G. West and Douglas A. Jeffrey, two eminent historians associated with the Claremont Institute (www.claremont.org) in California.

The ideas or principles that comprise the American theory of government are posited as self-evident truths in the Declaration. They are universal in their application and may be true for men everywhere and for all time, because they are based on the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” They are the proper building blocks for human reason in matters of politics. They are themselves inherent in human nature. To be governed accordingly, is to be governed as well as man can be. These conceptual building blocks for righteous government are: Equality, Natural Rights, Consent, Revolution, God and Honor. The Declaration’s statement of principles begins: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . .” Of course, humans are entirely different from each other in terms of their gifts and attributes. The Founders, however, meant to observe that regardless of differences like looks, talents or strength, etc., human beings are all equal in the life and liberty they are born with and deserve to keep. This kind of equality confers on everyone responsibility as well. James Madison explains inThe Federalist 54 that every human being, but no cow, is held morally accountable for violence committed against others, because every man is free to choose his behavior. Moreover, because of the innate temptation to abuse power (part of human nature), equality as the Founders understood it meant that no one should have inordinate power over others.

Men are therefore equal in their potential towards depravity and cruelty, if entrusted with too much power. Madison observed that men are not angels; if they were, there would be no need for government in the first place. As it is, government should not concentrate too much power in the hands of anyone or any group of people. Note that if you deny personal responsibility or pass it along to someone else or worse, to some drug or psychosis or whatever, you practically lose your basis for equality as understood by the Founders. People recategorize themselves with cows all the time, and that’s just not good horse sense. The Founders expected us to walk on two legs and to get up off all fours--to behave like responsible moral agents, because we are equal in that respect. Only in this way are the great mass of men, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, unfit to be saddled, booted and spurred by the favored few.

The Declaration continues that human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” A right, according to the Founders, is a claim that a person may rightfully make against someone who would deprive him of what is his own. You own your clothes for instance, and you have a right to them. If someone takes them from you, you have a legitimate claim against that person. He or she owes them back--or rather, he or she has a duty not to take them in the first place. A natural right is a claim to what one rightfully owns by birth, or by way of one’s nature as a human being. Natural rights are unalienable, because they cannot be alienated or given away to someone else. A right from this point of view is a duty from another. If you have a right to liberty, I have a duty to respect that right. The Declaration specifically mentions three unalienable rights. No one may rightfully deny us these things. Note the third one mentioned above is the pursuit of happiness and not happiness itself. But the Declaration also says these three are “among” our natural rights, so there must be others. Additional natural rights may be gleaned from official documents and writings of the Founding era, and they include the rights of conscience and property, free speech and free press, freedom of religion, and others protected in what became our Constitution’s “Bill of Rights.”

The Founders would never have said that you have a right to decent housing, health care, recreation, or anything else before you have worked to get them. It is only after you have acquired your property in some legitimate way that your right to own property comes into play. That said, property rights can be seen as part of the right to liberty and the right to pursue happiness. There is also a natural right to work, and property comes into play here too. We own ourselves and our labor by human nature; ergo, we are free to work and to keep the fruits of our labor. The right to earn property, and to keep the property one earns is fundamental to the conception of Natural Rights shared by the Founders. Moreover, the right of religious liberty was not a right to exclude religion from public life. Indeed, the right to religious liberty flows from the duty that all human beings have towards their Creator. The most basic reason for freedom of religion understood by the Founders, was not to free man from obligation to God or religion, but to free him to perform his duties to God, without obnoxious coercion into modes of worship by fallible human beings in government.

Is Obama Like Haman?

elvisnixon.com — 2012-05-03T19:25:05Z

The National Day of Prayer is an annual event passed by joint resolution of Congress in 1952 and signed into law by President Truman. Of course the tradition of calling for special days set aside for prayer goes back much further, indeed to the American Revolution and to the First Continental Congress in 1775. The National Day of Prayer is observed on the first Thursday of May each year. Because our nation continues to navigate through extremely challenging days, the National Day of Prayer Task Force chose “One Nation Under God” as this year’s theme. It is perhaps something to remember moreover, that this year is a pivotal election year. The inspiration for the 2012 theme is found in Psalm 33:12, which offers this important reminder: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord...”

Another verse worth referencing is Nahum 1:7 which states, “The Lord is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him.” Indeed, the Book of Nahum is interesting, in that, it is actually a warning to Israel about God’s wrath and the destruction of the wicked, and a prophecy about the downfall of the city of Nineveh. There may be some allusion here to these United States! But then there are the words “for such a time as this,” taken from the Book of Esther. It is in Esther we find a message of hope and also of deliverance, and one may at least pray there’s an allusion to us in that Book as well.

Esther was a beautiful Jewish maiden. She was orphaned and brought up by her cousin Mordecai, who held office and served Xerxes the king of Persia. After dethroning his very difficult wife Vashti, the king chose Esther to take her place as queen. Mordecai and Esther did not reveal their relationship, however, probably because they did not want her Jewish parentage to enter in and become a point of contention or prejudice. Meanwhile another officer named Haman hated Jews almost pathologically, so much that he actually presumed upon the king’s authority and ordered their persecution throughout the kingdom. It is upon that occasion that Mordecai approaches Esther and asks her to intervene on their people’s behalf. At first she does not appreciate her influence, and she does not quite know the limits of her position. She is cautious at least, even afraid to broach the king on this subject knowing how hot tempered he could be. She might be viewed as being difficult like Vashti. She might blow her political capital so to speak, her query dismissed as mere nuisance or worse as a bald imposition.

Mordecai nevertheless persuades her to find courage and to persevere, by reminding her of the gravity of the situation and of greater purpose beyond her mortal self. He references the unlikely series of events that brought her to the throne and suggests to Esther that she may have come into her position just “for such a time as this.” It is a peculiarity of the Book of Esther that the name of God does not once occur in it, but the reality of God is clearly present. Esther obtains permission from the king to arrange a banquet and to invite Haman. She petitions the king at the banquet to stop all the outrages being committed against Jews in the kingdom. When asked by the king who is responsible for the terrible things she describes, she fingers none other than Haman who is there present. In an amazing turnabout, Haman is hung on the very gallows he had built and prepared for Mordecai. Talk about poetic justice! As for the Jews, they “rested from their enemies” and were allowed to take revenge—their desperate situation having turned in an instant “from sorrow to joy, and from mourning into a good day” (Esther 9:22).

Today these United States of America face a desperate situation economically and politically, and the nation is in dire need of prayer. The people need Mordecai’s encouragement, in order to weather unemployment and a rapidly approaching debt crisis, taxes and overregulation; they need to be reminded like Esther, of their exalted position in the Republic. Americans have enemies around the world to be sure. They also have enemies within and our own share of officers in the government who presume upon the authority of the people and who subvert the written Constitution and intent of the Founders. It behooves us to remember, however, that turnabouts come quickly. Exposing evildoers in public can have a dramatic effect as it did with ACORN, and one single election can reverse four years of very bad policy practically in an instant.

Unite...Or Die

elvisnixon.com — 2012-04-28T16:56:10Z

If you care about personal freedom, individual liberties, and the Constitution of this Republic, help us to oust Barack Obama and the Democrat Party from power this November.

To stop Obama and the Democrats from finishing the transformation of this Republic, those who make up the factions in the Republican Party must put aside their differences and unite, or America will die.

Thanks Millstone Diaries

The Gathering Storm

elvisnixon.com — 2012-04-26T07:03:00Z

H/T Jerry Kane

Unarmed, Mentally Disabled, "White" Hispanic Fatally Shot by Black Man

elvisnixon.com — 2012-04-25T17:15:24Z

A 22-year-old black man shot and killed Daniel Adkins, a 29-year-old, mentally disabled, unarmed "white" Hispanic man, following a heated argument in a Taco Bell parking lot near Phoenix, Arizona, April 3.

The unidentified black man and his girlfriend were leaving the drive-thru after placing an order when Adkins stepped out from around a corner in front of the vehicle. The driver and Adkins exchanged angry words, and the driver fired one shot into Adkins, who died at the scene.

The driver and the girl claimed that Adkins had swung a metal pipe at them, but the "pipe" turned out to be a leash to the yellow Labrador on the other end. An independent witness said Adkins did swing his fists in the driver's direction, and the driver's claiming self-defense.

"This person is still on the loose and I don't agree with that. So he's saying self defense, then where's the weapon? Where's the pipe? They didn't find anything on my brother. He was just too aggressive, [sic] you don't need to go that far."—Marina Reyes, Adkins' sister

Adkins' family is calling for the shooter's arrest.

"He needs to be behind bars. I'll never see my brother again. If he felt that my brother was threatening him, he could have easily just rolled up the window and called the cops."—Marina Reyes

Police have made no arrests, as the investigation into the shooting continues.

In a nutshell, the April 3 shooting fatality of a mentally disabled, unarmed Hispanic man with an "Anglo" name and light complexion by a 22-year-old black man is ignored by the national media and fails to raise the collective eyebrow of the "no justice, no peace" crowd, while the family awaits the nation's Racist-in-Chief and its Injustice Department to raise people's consciousness and politicize the case.

Obviously, the national media intend to keep the Adkins shooting quiet, so once again it's left up to Internet bloggers and the alternative media to get the story out to the masses.

If Daniel Adkins' life has as much value as Trayvon Martins', e-mail the Attorney General in Phoenix, Arizona, at CivilRightsinfo@azag.gov.

I.M. Kane

For more on the story, see No charges over 'reverse Trayvon Martin' shooting in Phoenix area and Taco Bell Shooting Victim was Holding Leash, Not Weapon.

Only Fixed Constitution will Protect Freedom

elvisnixon.com — 2012-04-24T19:59:30Z

A purely traditional or customary approach to the rule of law does not adequately defend freedom. Rationalist approaches are even less capable, because they lack the element of fixity required by a legal system. A fixed constitution requires reference to substantive principles, from which tradition is derived--reference points anterior to, and controlling upon, the development of pure tradition. These reference points are ultimately religious and axiomatic in nature. In a way, it is the “establishment of religion” that will restore for us the Constitution and secure the Blessings of Liberty that were intended. If we consult the official public record, including legislative transcripts dealing with the First Amendment, there is no other conclusion but that the Supreme Court was woefully (if not willfully) off the mark in its 1962 decision banning prayer in a New York school district.

The latest and most thorough research based on primary sources establishes clearly that the origins of ordinary Americans’ values were not in classical republicanism or rational humanism, but in reformed Protestant Christianity. Neither were the elite a lot of skeptics, secularists and “Deists.” The vast majority of the Founders were church-going Christians, and none were as hostile to religion as, say, Justice Hugo Black. Excellent work proving this point has been done by M.E. Bradford, W. W. Sweet, and Rene D. Williamson. The Founders’ beliefs are important, because they shed light on the intent of the First Amendment. Disestablishment of official churches where it occurred did not equate to modern secularism, nor did the First Amendment injunction preventing the national Congress from establishing a religion disallow the states from doing so. Indeed, James Madison’s discussions in debates about the First Amendment reveal it was an object of the amendment to prevent Congress from threatening the religious diversity of the states, which ranged from established churches to doctrinal requirements of various sorts.

Massachusetts, for instance, had an established church until 1833. Ironically, the First Amendment wording as voted on by the House came from Fisher Ames, conservative from Massachusetts. Wording was compromised in conference committee before sending the amendment on to the Senate for a vote. Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, stalwart Calvinists from Connecticut, worked on that committee project. At the time, their state had a law that fined anyone 50 shillings for not going to church. One had to be Protestant to serve in the New Hampshire legislature until 1877. Roman Catholics could not hold office in North Carolina until 1835, in New Jersey until 1844. In Maryland, until 1826, one had to be Christian to hold office. As North Carolina “liberalized,” it still required public office holders to be Christian until 1868; thereafter, they had to profess a belief in God. Of course, the First Amendment did not prevent the appointment of chaplains or the establishment of Thanksgiving Day at the national level either. In fact, the day after Congress passed the First Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification, the House adopted the resolution calling fora day of national prayer and thanksgiving with language thanking God for the “opportunity peacefully to establish a constitutional government. . . .”

Thomas Jefferson’s words “wall of separation” have been bandied to support the 1962 High Court decision and other decisions derived from it. The words come from an 1802 letter and are taken totally out of context. Indeed, we have only to look at Jefferson’s second inaugural address to find what he really said regarding church and state. Jefferson clearly states that the free exercise of religion is independent of the general government under the Constitution; that is, Jefferson left religion as the Constitution found it, “under the direction or discipline of state or church authorities . . . .” His interpretation squares identically with Madison’s rationale and the intent of the First Amendment. The wall of separation, such as it was, was intended to be between the federal government and the states and not between the people and their religion.

The American Whig Party of the last century (and not a few of the Founders) equated the leading principles of the Bible with those of the Constitution, but it has not been my intent to equate the Constitution with religion or religion with the Constitution--only to point out using the example of religion that the intended and fixed nature of the Constitution (and the purpose of its written format) have been subjected to a kind of cumulative violation. And indeed, this fact plays havoc with various aspects of American political tradition. Time has a way of losing what is not fixed by strict construction. A fluid Constitution means the loss of our whole political tradition at some point.

________________________

Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he serves as State Director of the Republican freedom Coalition (RFC) and is currently running for U. S. Congress (TX-District 25 in the Republican Primary. He is also author of two books, Horse Sense for the New Millennium (2011), and The Nexus of Faith and Freedom(2012). Both books are available on-line at http://www.wesriddle,net/ and from fine bookstores everywhere. Email: Wes@WesRiddle.com.

"The Talk" : Liberal Version

elvisnixon.com — 2012-04-22T07:03:00Z

LEVON HELM: American Original

elvisnixon.com — 2012-04-21T19:50:00Z

The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down

Obama's Pinata

elvisnixon.com — 2012-04-17T07:03:00Z

What it Takes

elvisnixon.com — 2012-04-16T07:23:00Z

Sometimes in our day-to-day rush and familiar surroundings and cultural norms, we forget how truly amazing America is. Folks, who have been away for some time, almost universally feel the need to get back. They need to “recharge,” in a sense. You know something’s special here, if you consider that millions want to come. Millions more look to America from their homes for guidance, assistance or example.

Ignorant people in the world think we’re soft, because they see the plenty and don’t understand what it has taken—and what it takes—to have what we have. They don’t understand the discipline we live each day, in terms of balancing hard work and family relations, and service to our country and to God. They don’t understand our striving to be the best we can be, and I mean in every single capacity God has granted us: mental, physical, spiritual, social and emotional. We strive to be “whole” persons, and we strive to be good. We also strive to win, because we’re good. That’s actually pretty unique in this world of ours.

Our own countrymen often overlook the value we subconsciously place on “freedom”—the freedom to do things, to go places, to have fun, to start new enterprises. We also generally place emphasis on personal responsibility, on self-reliance, on dignity and yes, even on clean living. It’s horse sense really: you reap what you sow. The Taliban and Al Qaeda certainly learned that. But they didn’t have any American horses. They didn’t know Middle America—or New York, for that matter. They sure as “H” didn’t know a Texan or they would have known we’d kick their rear end. They thought Americans were weak and cowardly materialists, but I suppose it’s easy to mistake the love of freedom for lack of virtue, or the love of peace for cowardice.

It’s a shame our attackers didn’t read our history (it’s a shame a lot of us don’t), because then they’d realize what it takes to be American. What it takes, in addition to good education and tons of elbow grease, is one or more wars practically every generation. Now did we really think that the twenty-first century was going to be any different, perhaps more peaceful because of the victory “the greatest generation” won in World War II? Believe it or not, that’s a sentiment made by the famous historian Stephen Ambrose, just two days before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon! I guess the Cold War, Korea, Viet Nam, and the Gulf War were just chopped liver. Anyway, I am very grateful for the World War II generation, certainly the greatest of the twentieth century. But don’t think their accomplishment means we’ve got less to do, because it doesn’t.

The principal of Somerville College, Oxford, said to his new arrivals in 1944 that all beginnings are hopeful. So the new century/new millennium probably invited optimism, and optimism is not all bad—indeed, it’s essential. But as one of the great Free World leaders during the Cold War—Margaret Thatcher—said, “My generation remembers that we had such faith after World War I that there could never be another world war, we let our defenses down.” Do you see a pattern? Again and again, we prove what it takes. The measure in blood, however, depends on our preparedness at the time.

Out of 150 countries in the world, only 72 are free. I’d say the odds are we’re in for a few more challenges. History and prudence dictate that we be prepared. Again, Thatcher has the right advice for Americans:

We must keep our defenses up and we must have equipment

Of the very latest technology. This is absolutely vital….

I believe the first duty of any government is to protect the lives

of its citizens…. And we do that by having the latest technology

in the United States. My friends, you’re citizens of a wonderful

country. You’ve built the greatest country in the world in terms of

establishing the rule of law, defending the freedoms of others, and

building a most prosperous future for your people. If those who do

have liberty would be guided by your example, what a much

better world it would be. In the meantime …[you] must continue

to keep up [your] reputation.

________________________

Obama Demands Oath of Loyalty

elvisnixon.com — 2012-04-15T07:03:00Z

President B Hussein Obama demands an oath of loyalty from his subjects......

Oops-

Los Angeles:Race Wars and Ethnic Cleansing

elvisnixon.com — 2012-04-14T17:36:40Z

Since December of 2005 when Roger McGrath first wrote this, Los Angeles managed to elect (twice) the execrable Tony Villaraigosa as Mayor (or" Alcalde" as he prefers to be called) and made life far more violent and difficult for all Los Angeles residents:

Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition has a ways to go in Los Angeles, where Mexicans and blacks are killing each other at record rates. The action is particularly hot in South Central Los Angeles and in nearby Compton, two areas that have undergone a dramatic shift during the last two decades from virtually all black to half or more Hispanic.

Most of the schools in these areas are now majority Latino, something I could not possibly have imagined when I was in high school in the early 1960s. By that time South Central and Compton had made a transition from virtually all white during the 1930s to virtually all black. They remained that way into the late 1970s, when the effects of illegal immigration from Mexico first began to be felt. By the 1990s, entire neighborhoods had been transformed. Terry Anderson , a black auto mechanic from South Central, describes what it was like at the end of the decade:

teenagers can’t get after-school or entry-level jobs—something to put on a resume. When I was 16 and 17, I had jobs at McDonald’s, Burger King, Jack in the Box. Now these jobs in L.A. are held by 30- or 40-year-old immigrants—100% Spanish-speaking and probably 90% from Mexico.

period of 10 years,

Yet nobody speaks up for our children the way pro-immigrant organizations do for immigrant children.

five immigrant families

can’t live like that.

seven or eight children

There will be 20 to 30 people living in it, they will keep goats, they will grow corn in the front yard, they will hang their wash on the front fence. It’s a culture clash

Since the 1990s, the changes described by Anderson have intensified. The demographic statistics are startling. The two high schools nearest the Los Angeles Coliseum—presumably the schools Anderson’s children would have attended—are Jefferson, two miles to the east, and Manual Arts, a half mile to the southwest. During the 1960s and ’70s, the schools were nearly 100 percent black—and Jefferson had been since the 1940s. Today Jefferson is 7 percent black and 92 percent Hispanic, and Manual Arts 20 percent black and 79.5 percent Hispanic.

The story is similar for the rest of South Central. Fremont High School , virtually 100 percent black during the 1960s and ’70s, is now 12 percent black and 88 percent Hispanic. Crenshaw and Locke, two high schools built after the Watts riots and nearly all black during their first 20 years, are now 32 percent and 63 percent Hispanic. Dorsey and Washington high schools, which went from white to black during the ’50s and early ’60s, are each now 45 percent Hispanic. Unchecked illegal immigration will ensure Hispanic majorities at the two schools within a few years.

The most stunning change of all, though, has occurred at Jordan High School. Lying six miles to the southeast of the Coliseum, Jordan is in the heart of Watts, a portion of Los Angeles that had the unique distinction of becoming predominately black prior to World War II. During the war, the federal government built Jordan Downs, Nickerson Gardens, and Imperial Courts, three housing projects for southern blacks who had come to Los Angeles to replace white workers then serving overseas. When other high schools in South Central were still white in the 1940s, Jordan was solidly black. Jordan High School and black were synonymous. Watts and black were synonymous.

Crossing into Watts, as I did in 1962 to play a football game against the Jordan High Bulldogs, was like being transported to another country. Except for cops and firemen, whites were nowhere to be seen—and that was at a time when the population of Los Angeles County was 80 percent white. When our team bus stopped at lights, men and boys, loitering at the street corners, gesticulated at us and shouted epithets. We didn’t exactly feel welcomed. After we won 20-7, a security force had to escort us to our bus behind chain-link fences and gates to protect us from a mob that had gathered in the street next to the school’s parking lot.

Jordan remained virtually all black throughout the ’60s and ’70s, and I would have bet that Watts and Jordan High would have remained so for my lifetime and more. Today, the school is 20 percent black and 79 percent Hispanic, and Spanish is the language most commonly heard on campus.

Such dramatic shifts have not come without violence. Fighting is common and racial brawls not unusual. Jefferson High School was the scene of three such brawls during the spring semester alone. Like Jordan, Jefferson High was predominately—almost exclusively—black from the early 1940s until the 1980s. Today, there are only 300 blacks and more than 3,500 Hispanics at the school. Of the Hispanics, 1,741 are listed as “English learners.” Better than half of the school’s students were born in Mexico, and nearly all Latino students, whether native or foreign born, converse with each other in Spanish. Blacks have complained about it, saying the “Mexicans” are “disrespecting” them by speaking in Spanish. Latinos have responded by saying they are not going to stop speaking Spanish just because blacks don’t like it.

A brawl involving more than a hundred students erupted on April 14. During lunch, two black girls began fighting over a cell phone. A crowd surrounded them immediately, jeering and heckling. A group of black football players pushed through the crowd to see the action. A milk cartoon arced through the air and hit one of them. “Who threw the carton?” the victim yelled at some Latinos. “Go back to Africa,” came the response.

Fighting erupted, spread quickly, and continued for 20 minutes before campus security guards and LAPD officers restored order. Blacks got the worst of it, and it seems they regularly do. “I’m scared even to go to class,” said Keiana Scott, speaking to a Los Angeles Times reporter and glancing nervously at nearby Latino students. “I’ve got to look over my shoulder every five minutes to see if somebody’s about to whup me.” Another black girl was escorted to her class by a teacher. When asked by other students what happened, she replied, “I was jumped by a bunch of f-----g Mexicans.” While some Latinas tried to console her, several others confronted her and one asked, “Why are you disrespecting me?” The teacher and Scott’s Latina friends managed to get the other girls to back off but not before they taunted their fellow Latinas for having “no pride in your own people.”

Writing for the May-June issue of LA Youth, a newspaper that includes a staff of some 70 high-school students, an anonymous Latino student described his participation in the Jefferson High brawl. His version of events suggests that the fight was planned and that both black and brown students knew it was coming on April 14. The anonymous writer said that he had told a black student he knew that he was not going to get involved. “But on the day of the fight,” he said, “when another friend called me and said I needed to back up my Mexican friends, I just wanted to defend my pride. I know that was a stupid reason to miss a day of school. But I wanted to stand up for my family, my Mexican ancestors, and the people who worked hard so I could be here—my heritage that I’m really proud of. ... During the fight I felt good defending my race. I was hitting anybody I could get my hands on.”

Another brawl, this time involving more than 200 students, erupted four days later at Jefferson. Again, it took security guards and cops to quell the disturbance. On April 29, it was Jordan High’s turn when about 100 black and brown students fought. Rumors then had it that any black going to school on May 5—Cinco de Mayo —would be beaten to a pulp. The Los Angeles Unified School District reported that 51,000 students were absent from its middle and high schools that day, an absentee rate of 20 percent. On May 26, another brawl erupted at Jefferson only 24 hours before a scheduled “Day of Dialogue” to discuss the earlier racial brawls. On the Day of Dialogue all but a few of the school’s 300 black students stayed home.

School authorities made all their usual inane comments. Jefferson High principal Norm Morrow claimed he had no idea racial tensions were running so high. “This thing happened so quickly,” he said, “it caught us off guard. Had we seen signs of intolerance ... damn right I would have done some things differently.” A campus security guard said, “It’s a handful of knuckleheads causing the problem.” The cures suggested were also standard: troublemakers would be transferred, new security cameras installed, more campus police assigned to the school, the lunch period divided, and community meetings held regularly. Other actions were taken by local residents themselves. Determined to protect their black brothers, members of the Nation of Islam patrolled the streets around the school.

Other racial brawls have occurred at Washington and Locke high schools and individual fights between blacks and browns at every high school in South Central. Although dozens of students have been injured in the brawls, no one has been killed. Yet.

Out on the streets the violence between blacks and browns has turned deadly. During the ’70s and ’80s, black gangs—essentially the many versions of the Bloods and Crips—ruled the streets in South Central. During the ’90s they began to be challenged by Hispanic gangs, mainly Mexicans but some Salvadorans as well. Police tell me that the black gangs are now on the defensive, having had many of their members killed in Blood-Crip warfare and many others imprisoned.

Meanwhile, Latino gangs have a seemingly inexhaustible supply of recruits south of the border. Mexico has 105 million people, and 42 million of them live below the poverty line. Crime and corruption are rampant. Mexican nationals can kill in California and then slip into Mexico. Even if apprehended, which is the rarest of scenarios, they cannot be extradited to the United States for trial. The Mexican constitution prohibits the extradition of any citizen facing a sentence of death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. More than a hundred Mexican nationals are wanted for murder in Los Angeles County. Gang members wanted for a whole host of crimes often flee to Mexico for a year or two only to return with a new identity, allowing them to resume their criminal activities.

During the last five years, more than 3,000 murders in Los Angeles County have been attributed to gangs. Fifteen or 20 years ago the majority of the murders would have been committed by members of black gangs. Today, most of the murders are committed by Latino gang members, many of them illegal aliens. Latino gangs now outnumber black gangs, 209 to 152, and have more than double the number of gang members. The 18th Street gang has more than 10,000 members and is the bloodiest criminal organization in Los Angeles.Police estimate that nearly two-thirds of its members are illegal aliens from south of the border. The Lil’ Cycos gang has a similar composition and, although smaller in numbers, proportionately commits as many murders. Year by year, these Latino gangs and others are taking control of turf once ruled by black gangs.

The conflict between Latino gangs and black gangs is especially pronounced at the housing projects in Watts. At Jordan Downs alone, there have been 14 murders since 2000 and an average of a violent crime every day and a half, the highest rate of crime of any public housing project in Los Angeles. In an effort to stop the flow of blood, the LAPD has plans to install surveillance cameras throughout the 700-unit complex. The project’s 2,400 residents are not thrilled with the idea. “I wouldn’t want the LAPD to watch me day to day,” offered resident David Valencia. “Mexicans and blacks don’t usually agree on anything. But none of us want to be watched.” “This isn’t about Big Brother,” said Police Commission Vice President Alan Skobin. Added the LAPD’s George Gascon, “Cameras are as much a part of policing now as handcuffs.”

When black and brown criminals are incarcerated, they take their racial conflict with them into California’s prisons. Racial riots occur with disturbing frequency. Blacks and Latinos have been routinely segregated, although a recent court decision may force integration. The results are bound to cause more violent eruptions if reception centers at the prisons are any example. The centers serve as temporary homes for processing inmates from county jails before they are assigned to a regular housing unit in the prison. Regardless of race, inmates live together at the centers. Fights are common. In late September, eight inmates were seriously injured in a racial brawl at the reception center at the California Institution for Men at Chino. According to a prison spokesman, more than 200 blacks and Latinos not only fought but tore up the center “pretty good, with broken windows and doors.”

More ominous, perhaps, is the daily conflict among the generalblack and brown populations in South Central. Occasionally, the conflict turns deadly. On a Sunday night in late September, 23-year-old William Armistead and 17-year-old Courtney Whaley walked into Robidio Espana’s Super Discount Store on San Pedro Street, a short distance from Fremont High. While in the store, Armistead and Whaley grew irritated at employees speaking to each other in Spanish and assumed themselves to be the objects of derogatory remarks. In response, the two young blacks began harassing a female clerk, gesturing and making offensive sexual remarks. Espana intervened, precipitating a heated verbal exchange with Armistead and Whaley. They left but on their way out the door threatened to return and get Espana.

When they did return to the store, Espana was waiting for them with a gun. He opened fire with deadly accuracy. Hit several times, Armistead dropped to the floor. Rounds also tore into Whaley, but he managed to stagger to the street. Both men were rushed to a nearby hospital where they died. In the meantime, Espana fled the scene. His family later persuaded him to surrender to police, who charged him with two counts of murder and with being a felon in possession of a handgun. (He had once been convicted of grand theft auto.)

Espana’s wife Lorena said that black gangs had come to the store several times demanding protection money. Her husband had steadfastly refused to pay but was left fearing for his life. Police confirmed that is what she told them but could not corroborate the claim. Ironically, police said that Latino gangs had been extorting money from businesses in the area. Only a year ago, the city had filed an injunction against the Latino 38th Street gang for its extortion racket.

Within days of the shooting, “187 Mexicans” appeared on the front wall of Espana’s store—187 referring to the section in California’s criminal code for murder. The concise graffiti soon began appearing elsewhere in South Central. Also within days of the shooting, a black woman, who was friends with the Whaleys, was shot by what witnesses described as “Mexicans” while she stood in front of the Whaley home. She is expected to recover.

California’s Victim Assistance Program provided money for Courtney Whaley’s burial but not for that of William Armistead, who was on probation when he died. (State regulations prohibit funds from the victim program going to anyone on probation.) Lorena Espana was less than sympathetic. “The families of the two people who died know well what happened. They don’t want to recognize that they were to blame.”

Meanwhile, in the incorporated city of Compton, just over the line from South Central Los Angeles , several blacks were killed in October in what may have been racially motivated shootings, bringing the city’s total murders thus far in the year to 54. With only 93,000 people, Compton has become one of the murder capitals of the United States. During the last two decades, the town has gone from predominately black to nearly 60 percent Hispanic. Compton’s two high schools, Centennial and Compton—more than 90 percent black in the ’60s and ’70s—are now 54 percent and 66 percent Hispanic. At Centennial, 41 percent of the students are English learners, and at Compton 50 percent, meaning that 80-90 percent of the Latino students at each school fall into the category. They speak Spanish with each other and have little to do with black students.

Despite a majority of Latino students, six of the eight members of school board are black. More striking, though, is the exclusively black city government, including the mayor, the city attorney, the city treasurer, the city clerk, and all members of the city council. Four of five city jobs are held by blacks. Thus far, Latino demands for jobs and a role in government have gone nowhere, principally because most of Compton’s Latinos are illegal aliens and don’t vote.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, whose deputies patrol Compton, attributes the spike in murders to drugs, gangs, and racial tension. Drugs and gangs, however, were very much a part of Compton during the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s, leaving racial conflict between blacks and Latinos as the new factor—the elephant in the living room that few want to discuss publicly . Baca was right about drugs and gangs, though, except instead of black gang members killing each other as in the past in Compton, it is now more likely black-on-brown or brown-on-black.

There is a war at the moment between the Latino Compton Tortilla Flats gang and the black Fruit Town Pirus. Their combined efforts just might make this a record year for murder in Compton.

It’s clear that the Rainbow Coalition’s colors are running, and they’re running blood red.

_______________________________________________

Roger D. McGrath is an historian in California and the author of Gunfighters, Highwaymen and Vigilantes.

Fighting The Last War (Again)

elvisnixon.com — 2012-04-12T03:19:07Z

"In a fast-changing world, a common mistake is to keep fighting the last war.

For example, why would Republicans support sending more troops to Afghanistan, when that war was long over, or helping topple Moammar Gadhafi, who had become an ally in the war on terrorism? Some Republicans seem to support all military deployments just out of habit.

For years after the 9/11 terrorist attack on America, Democrats hysterically bemoaned any military action, especially in Iraq. They claimed to have many precious objections, but the truth was, they thought we deserved the attack -- or at best, both sides were at fault.

So when it came to Obama's pointlessly sending more troops to Afghanistan or foolishly intervening in Libya, some Republicans' first instinct was to demand muscular American military action, forgetting that we are the party that cares about American national security and does not fling troops around the globe just to look tough, as the Democrats do.

Republicans who supported sending more troops to Afghanistan and taking out Gadhafi were fighting the last war. ..."

Ann Coulter

Multiculturalism: Would Jesse Jackson be better off living in Uganda?

elvisnixon.com — 2012-04-10T17:09:40Z

Multiculturalism is a word that refers to a fact, as well as to a fallacy. On the one hand, a demographic change has and is occurring in America. For the past 40 years, most immigrants have come from Asia, Africa and Latin America, instead of from Europe. Moreover, the birthrates for these and other non-white minorities are substantially higher than for whites. This has led to a “browning of America” and to multiculturalism in fact. The ideology of multiculturalism, however, is a horse of a different color. Unlike the fact of multiculturalism, this ideology by the same name is a fallacy that poses a vital threat to America. Indeed, it is a tool of the political left for changing the country’s educational and political institutions. A variant of cultural relativism, it posits an explicit denial that Western and American civilizations have anything in them superior to other cultures. Further, the ideology entails the assertion that Western and American civilizations are actually worse, that successes for the past half millennium are the product of exploitation—namely colonialism, and slavery.

Well, that of course is horse hockey. In point of fact, colonialism and slavery are universal and not distinctively Western. The British conquered India and ruled it for 300 years, but before the British there were the Persians, the Mongols, the Afghans, and Alexander the Great. As for slavery, it has existed in all cultures: ancient India, China, Greece and Rome, and in Africa. American Indians even practiced it before Columbus corrupted them. What’s uniquely Western isn’t slavery but abolition—the movement to end slavery developed in Western civilization. As author and academic Dinesh D’Souza, himself an immigrant from India, has stated, “Never outside the West have slave-owners and potential slave-owners proclaimed principles condemning it, and expended blood and treasure ending it.” Moreover, Western civilization has produced the height of all civilizations in certain respects, to include literature. As Saul Bellow pointed out a few years ago, there ain’t a Tolstoy of the Zulus or a Proust amongst the Papuans. (He caught quite a bit of flack for his insensitivity, by the way). Obviously, there are great works produced by non-Western cultures—and you can add these and still remain anchored in Western thought and culture!

Recently the multicultural ideologues came up with another bizarre idea to give reparations for slavery—cash payments to blacks today to make up for the injustice of historical slavery. It made me think of what Muhammad Ali said after his mid-1970s fight with George Foreman. The fight was held in Zaire. After he returned to America, he was asked what he thought of Africa. He replied, “Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat.” Although a funny quip, colonialism and slavery proved ironical. They were bad for the generations experiencing them but indirectly beneficial to generations that followed. D’Souza points out that his Indian grandfather was embittered by the unfair treatment he experienced under British rule. Paradoxically, however, as a consequence of the same colonial rule, his grandchild learned ideas and traditions that inform a Western understanding of freedom: separation of powers, democracy, human dignity, equal rights.

Slavery in America was clearly harmful and wrong to the people who lived under it, but it proved to be the unintended transmission belt that brought Africans into the orbit of Western freedom. Are the descendants of slaves really worse off? Would Jesse Jackson be better off living in Uganda? Would we? (Don’t answer that). No, we cannot repair the harm done to those who suffered under slavery, but it would be absurd to pay those who have benefited most from their ancestors’ suffering.

There’s something else I want to say about the liberals’ mantra, “We are the world.” When they say multicultural, ask them “multi-what?” I don’t want America to be a microcosm of the world, if by that you would include all the ignorance, ugliness, vice and corruption that are present in the world—chiefly (though not exclusively) from non-Western imports. No, I’m old fashioned enough to want the best for America. I want to bring the best minds and the best souls here and to encourage those to flourish. America ought to represent a filtration of the mass of humanity. We need to have reasonable rates of immigration, and we ought to be selective. Western and American institutions are uniquely suited to bring out the best in everyone who is here—you might even say our institutions are superior in that regard. In the process, it doesn’t matter what color you are, to what race or religion you belong. It matters intensely, however, the character and the heart you bring. It matters that you are willing to uphold the Constitution of these United States and to love this great Republic. We are not the world, we are what the world hopes to become.

____________________

Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he serves as State Director of the Republican Freedom Coalition (RFC) and is currently running for U.S. Congress (TX-District 25) in the Republican Primary. He is also author of two books, Horse Sense for the New Millennium (2011), and The Nexus of Faith and Freedom(2012). Both books are available on-line at
www.WesRiddle.net and from fine bookstores everywhere. Email: Wes@WesRiddle.com.

Easter or Ramadan?

elvisnixon.com — 2012-04-04T20:46:39Z

May all our readers enjoy a blessed Easter.

As we approach this most sacred Christian Holiday - the Resurrection of Jesus Christ- we recall how "our" President Obama actively elevates islam and denigrates Christianity:

Obama is the FIRST President to actively denigrate Christians and Christianity while simultaneously bowing down to Muslims and Sharia law.

Were there any “gay” couples invited to the official Obama White House Ramadan meal?

Why not?

Obama made a great show of having many homosexuals at his “Easter egg roll” rubbing Christians' noses in what he called a "teachable moment" against "the forces of homophobia and hate."

Easter is Christianity’s major holy day. Why did he not mock and insult Muslims in the same way?

Why did Obama not shove a “teachable moment” into the faces of Muslims?

Earlier this year, Obama forced Christians to watch in dismay as he hijacked the Christian holiday of Easter to endorse homosexual child rearing, and he used Ramadan to endorse the construction of a massive mosque on the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He clearly hates Christianity and embraces Islam, as well as homosexuality. It's only unclear which one he prefers, or fears, more. It seems to be Islam since he didn't include any gays, lesbians, transgenders, transexuals, cross-dressers, or pre-ops at his Ramadan celebration.

This is a deadly double standard by a man who refused to attend the National Day of Prayer breakfast, refused to attend the Boy Scouts of America (because of their policy of protecting boys from potential "gay" predators) and wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. He and his wife Michele attended Jeremiah Wright's hate-filled "church" that promoted overt racism and black liberation theology for years. This is Obama's sole connection with what the media think is legitimate Christianity.

Why is the media as silent about Obama's purposeful neglect of the gay, lesbians and transgender community" when it comes to his Muslim holiday celebration as they are about that fact that the California city of Bell's entire corruption scandal was 100% Democrat?"

Of Easter and Liberty

elvisnixon.com — 2012-04-03T19:11:17Z

Last Sunday was Palm Sunday, when Jesus entered Jerusalem and palm branches were strewn before him as a sign of welcome and praise. The Friday after is Good Friday when Jesus was crucified nearly two thousand years ago. Of course, the Sunday following is Easter when Jesus arose from the dead in fulfillment of what he said; and in proof of fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture and prophecy. Holy Week thus commemorates the most signal and momentous series of events in all human history, the week moving as it were, from victory unto Victory—with the depths of passion, pain and despair in between. The Story alone, if it were just literature is rich: for what it says about how quickly and radically a man’s fortunes will change; about the fickle nature of public opinion and public approval; the shallowness of perception at every stage, even if perception is reality—how shallow then the reality we perceive; the limits of loyalty even from friends, and the effects of fear and jealousy and greed on human action; the utter aloneness we face at the door twixt life and death and life again. The Story, however, is greater by far, because it is History and it is true.

It was from the moment of His appearing that the history of our civilization took its dramatic turn and produced ascendant values and aspirations—the definition of what constitutes Good; the attributes of Love; and the Liberty we profess and try to secure through constitutional republican government. The original twelve disciples or Apostles were: Andrew, Bartholomew, James (the younger, son of Alphaeus), James (the elder) and John (sons of Zebedee), Jude (or Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus), Judas Iscariot, Matthew (or Levi), Philip, Simon the Canaanite, Simon (called Peter), and Thomas (or Didymus). Judas who betrayed Jesus killed himself, after which the eleven saw Jesus in both spiritual forms and in the flesh after the Resurrection. The eleven also witnessed the Lord taken up in ascension. It was this powerful and undeniable demonstration of existence and life after death, in addition to a dispensation of Spirit that drove them far and wide—to carry the news and Christ’s doctrine. Incidentally, Matthias was chosen by theeleven to replace Judas. Paul, the “Apostle to the Gentiles” was not among the original twelve but had originally persecuted Christians. He was confronted supernaturally by the risen Christ while traveling on the road to Damascus, and this led to his dramatic conversion. Paul and the twelve then proceeded on a mission as it were from God, recruiting many more “apostles.” The Book of Acts (or the Acts of the Apostles) in the Bible describes the beginnings of the Christian church, all precipitated by Christ’s resurrection that first Easter morning.

Christian forebears founded the United States of America. They knew that leaders, elective or otherwise, needed to borrow a lesson from Solomon. Besides the hard work and vision supplied by the Declaration; besides all those practical matters of planning and raising an army and navy; the multiple responsibilities of checking, tracking, monitoring, correcting, disciplining, and also giving; besides all this they had to have the ‘understanding to discern judgment’ and ‘a wise and understanding heart’ (paraphrase I Kings 3: 11-12). Moreover, they looked ‘into the perfect law of liberty’ and were ‘blessed in their deed’ (paraphrase James 1: 25) to establish for us a written Constitution. One can learn the history of the American Revolution and early Republic all day long, but if one fails to capture and apply the Spirit of ’76 in the context of the Founders’ worldview it is almost a barren exercise. For what then become the rule of law and the context of our government?

Some will say that I digress, but here is where I make the point about all history and indeed all knowledge. Ladies and Gentlemen, I never met Jesus Christ in the flesh when He strode the earth among us—but neither did I know George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et al, in person. Their bones were quite reduced to dust before I was conceived. Yet there is evidence that something great transpired to change the Course of human events. There is also the written word of witnesses, whose bones are also reduced to dust—and I still believe. Faith is the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11: 1) and thus the foundation of all human knowledge, history and science included. I know only because I first believed. I believe the accounts of witnesses and the words recorded of the Founders themselves, who say they likewise believed in the risen Christ and felt His presence when they laid the foundations of this nation. No Ladies and Gentlemen, I have never seen a quark or lepton or cosmic glue either—except that I have a pretty good idea of what holds the Milky Way and the universe together.

The Founders never mistook the means for ends, so unlike our own time. They knew there is a liberty wherewith no human government confers. Authority is never for the sake of authority, or empire or even Union but only to serve the ends of the Creator in creation. That is to say, government serves those truths the Founders said were self-evident; and secures certain unalienable Rights, among them Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That is the Law for government ushered in by the risen Christ, which we need desperately to rediscover or reaffirm. Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea (c. 26-36 A.D.) when Jesus was crucified. Notwithstanding Jewish customs that were broken to deliver Jesus to him, Pilate clearly had the authority according to the laws of Rome to crucify Jesus. No administrative lapse of due process occurred from a Roman standpoint. The letter of the law was carried out. Easter should rekindle our love of Liberty and remind us the laws of the nation are not always in accord.

___________________

Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he serves as State Director of the Republican Freedom Coalition (RFC) and is currently running for U.S. Congress (TX-District 25) in the Republican Primary. He is also author of two books, Horse Sense for the New Millennium (2011), and The Nexus of Faith and Freedom(2012). Both books are available on-line at
www.WesRiddle.net and from fine bookstores everywhere. Email: Wes@WesRiddle.com.

TAKE YOUR CRIMINAL OUTLAWS BACK

elvisnixon.com — 2012-03-29T03:33:42Z

WHY are we hearing about Obama's "son" Trayvon and not the Vietnamese butcher of five whose brutal crime was entirely preventable?: Accused San Francisco Mass Murderer Was Not Deported to Vietnam. The case has not gotten much if any national attention, so it was reassuring to see law and sovereignty defender Congressman Ted Poe speak out on the issue:

Trayvon Obama

elvisnixon.com — 2012-03-27T21:47:29Z

The Health of a Republic

elvisnixon.com — 2012-03-26T17:46:20Z

The term republic had a significant meaning for all early Americans. The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution was unique, requiring strict limitation of government power. Powers that were permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

The Constitution made it clear that the government was not to interfere with productive nonviolent human energy. This is the key element that has permitted America’s great achievements and made America the political and economic envy of the world. We have truly been blessed.

Today, however, the nature of a republic and the current status of our own form of government are of little concern to most Americans. But there is a small minority, ignored by politicians, academics, and the media, who do spend time thinking about the importance of the proper role of government. The comparison of today’s government with the one established by our Constitution is a matter worthy of deep discussion for those who concern themselves with the future and look beyond the coming election. Understanding the principles that were used to establish our nation is crucial to its preservation and something we cannot neglect.

In our early history it was understood that a free society embraced both personal civil liberties and economic freedom. During the 20^th century, this unified concept of freedom was undermined. Today we have one group talking about economic freedom, while interfering with our personal liberty, and the other group condemning economic liberty, while preaching the need to protect civil liberties. Both groups reject liberty fifty percent of the time. Sadly, there are very few in this country who, today understand and defend liberty in both areas.

Many Americans wonder why Congress pays little attention to the Constitution and are bewildered as to how so much inappropriate legislation gets passed. But the Constitution is not entirely ignored. It is used correctly at times when it’s convenient and satisfies a particular goal, but never consistently across the board on all legislation. The Constitution is all too frequently made to say exactly what the authors of special legislation want it to say. That’s the modern way: language can be made relative to our times. But without a precise understanding and respect for the supreme law of the land, the Constitution no longer serves as the guide for the rule of law. In its place come the rule of man and special interests.

That’s how we have arrived in the 21^st century without a clear understanding or belief in the cardinal principles of the Constitution—the separation of powers and the tenets of federalism. Instead, we are rushing toward centralized control. Executive Orders, agency regulations, federal court rulings, and un-ratified international agreements direct our government, economy, and foreign policy.

Congress has truly been reduced in status and importance over the past hundred years. And when the people’s voices are heard, it’s done indirectly through polling, allowing our leaders to decide how far they can go without stirring up their constituents. This is opposite to what the Constitution was supposed to do: protect the rights of the minority from the abuses of the majority. The majority vote of the powerful and the influential was never meant to rule the people.

In a free society individuals should control their own lives, receiving the benefits and suffering the consequences of their actions. Once the individual becomes a pawn of the state, whether a monarch or a majority that’s in charge, a free society can no longer endure. We are dangerously close to that happening in America, even in the midst of plenty and with the appearance of contentment. If individual freedom is carelessly snuffed out, the creative energy needed for productive pursuits will dissipate. Government produces nothing, and in its effort to redistribute wealth, can only destroy it.

Freedom too often is rejected when there is a belief that government largesse will last forever. This is true because it is tough to accept personal responsibility, practice the work ethic, and follow the rules of peaceful coexistence with our fellow man. The temptation is great to accept the notion that everyone can be a beneficiary of the caring state and a winner of the lottery or a class action lawsuit. But history has proven there is never a shortage of authoritarians—benevolent, of course—quite willing to tell others how to live for their own good.

Some of my good friends suggest that it is a waste of time and effort to try to change the direction in which we are going. No one will listen, they argue, and the development of a strong centralized authoritarian government is too far along to reverse the trends of the last century. Why waste time in Congress when so few people care about liberty? The masses, they point out, are interested only in being taken care of, and the elites want to keep receiving the benefits allotted to them through special-interest legislation.

I am not naïve enough to believe the effort to preserve liberty is a cakewalk. But ideas, based on sound and moral principles, do have consequences. Our Founders clearly understood this, knowing they would be successful, even against overwhelming odds. They described this steady confidence, which they shared with each other when hopes were dim, as “divine providence.” We face tough odds, but to avoid battle or believe there is a place to escape to someplace else in the world would concede victory to those who endorse authoritarian government. The grand experiment in human liberty must not be abandoned. A renewed hope and understanding of liberty are what we need today.

___________________

Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he serves as State Director of the Republican Freedom Coalition (RFC) and is currently running for U.S. Congress (TX-District 25) in the Republican Primary. He is also author of two books, Horse Sense for the New Millennium (2011), and The Nexus of Faith and Freedom(2012). Both books are available on-line at
www.WesRiddle.net and from fine bookstores everywhere. Email: Wes@WesRiddle.com.