Small Thoughts for a Complex World™

According to Wikipedia, Loyalty Day was first observed on May 1st, 1921, as a counter to the growing influences of communism and anarchism on the American labor movement. In 1958 during the second Red Scare, Congress passed Public Law 85-529 declaring this to be a legal holiday — although one which is rarely observed. Wikipedia states:

In keeping with that tradition, on April 30, 2013, President Obama issued his own proclamation, once again declaring May 1st to be "Loyalty Day." Here is what he had to say:

But of course, as with all things Obama, there are interesting passages contained here that, in the name of this country's founding principles, turn those very principles upon their head. For example, Obama states:

Ignoring for the moment his appeal to faith rather than a conscious understanding and explicit agreement with our founding principles, what are some of those core ideas that he identifies?

"liberty, equality, and justice for all."

Contrast this with the Pledge of Allegiance which speaks of "liberty and justice for all. Where did "equality" come from and what does Obama mean by that?

When the founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

it is perfectly clear that they are speaking of individuals who are separate from one another, but all of whom possess equal rights as an inherent aspect of their human nature—rights pertaining to their freedom and independence; rights which grant them the power to direct and control the course of their own lives.

But this is not at all what Barack ("I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.") Obama means by equality. He is not promoting equality of opportunity to pursue one's desires in the manner of one's choosing. No, he is speaking of egalitarianism — of guaranteeing equality of outcomes. It is his intention to "level the playing field" by chopping off the legs of those that rise too high and using those severed limbs as a platform upon which others will be allowed to stand. And it the government, with him at the helm, that will be doing the chopping and deciding just how much to amputate.

As is the case with all smart totalitarians throughout history, he doesn't plan to go to war with the population in order to extract his pound of flesh. Instead, he navigates the much easier course of simply issuing a call to sacrifice oneself on the altar of altruism, and then stands back as a majority of the sheep lead themselves to slaughter. When Obama speaks here of "our country's core: service and citizenship," or declares that Loyalty Day is "an occasion that asks something of us as a people," he is laying the groundwork to help confuse the latent positive feelings that people retain for the greatness of what remains of this country, and getting them to transpose those feelings towards the act of serving the needs of others at their own expense.

And this is not some one-time occurrence, but a concerted effort and core goal of Obama's administration. Already he has declared both 9/11 and Martin Luther King Day to be National Days of Service. His never-ending call to serve can be found buried within most of his speeches, while more and more children of all ages are being forced to perform mandatory community service in our government-run schools as part of the federal Service-Learning initiative. And as I pointed out in my original article on National Service, the annual spending on the Corporation for National and Community Service has been drastically increased during The past five years, with an underlying goal of ultimately making National Service become a mandatory requirement imposed upon all citizens.

When Obama declares:

he is counting on most people not being aware of the fundamental Enlightenment principles of individualism upon which our American history rests, and an uncritical acceptance of his replacement of our rights to autonomy and self-directedness with his collectivist notion of egalitarianism. Unfortunately, after many generations of a populace indoctrinated in government schools, he can now apparently get his wish.

Earlier today, Rand Paul, the Republican Senator from KY, began a filibuster of the nomination of Obama appointee, John Brennan, to head up the CIA. Paul is conducting this filibuster in an attempt to force President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to declare their allegiance to the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Section 9) and the right to trial by Jury (5th Amendment) as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. He is demanding that they state categorically that the Executive branch does not have the authority to unilaterally target for death, any American citizen on American soil who does not pose an immediate threat. So far, both have refused to make a clear declaration. The need to take such a stand comes in the wake of the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) coupled with the administration's recent actions to turn Homeland Security into a unconstitutional, national, military organization and transition local police into a paramilitary force, while concurrently stockpiling arms and ammo and deploying drones across America.

If you are not already concerned, then you haven't been paying attention!

We now have a government that has gone mad with power and has no hesitation in mowing down any pesky constitutional concerns that still get in its way. Rand Paul has drawn a line in the sand and is taking a firm stand for limiting the government to its ennumerated powers and for protecting all of our rights. This filibuster is a symbolic act, and a very important one. The question is will the administration be forced to concede that their are limits to its actions, or will this filibuster simply fizzle out and soon be forgotten, along with the last remnants of our rights.

You can either sit back and wait to see what happens, or you can place yourself on the front lines and act to support this effort. I am asking everyone who reads this to act — and act immediately to provide support for what Rand Paul is doing. First, you can visit his Facebook page and adding your voice to the may others who are standing behind this effort. Follow this by going to his Senate Contact page, and leaving a personal message expressing your support for what he is doing. And then, most importantly of all, write a letter to the editors of your local papers, letting them know that there is considerable grassroots support for what Paul is doing—and why he is doing it. Contact like-minded friends and family and see if you can convince them to contribute their voice as well. In the big scheme of things, this may seem like only a small and inconsequential act, but I say that it is the first of many to come. Let's make this one count for all that it is worth!

For those interested, the filibuster can viewed live on C-SPAN2

Thanks to all of you for your willingness to fight for the cause of liberty. It means a great deal to me.

UPDATE:

9:30 PM PST: Here is a link to a new White House Petition asking that the president to respond to Rand Paul on the drone strike issue. Sign it!

After four years of Obama's incessantly divisive rhetoric, capped off by his historic reelection last November, there appears to no longer be any need to attempt to conceal the true intentions of these folk. The time for polite conversation and gentle persuasion has drawn to a close, and more direct and decisive action is now being demanded. Take for example what Louis Michael Seidman — who, just like Barack Obama, was an instructor of constitutional law — suggests in his December 30, 2012 New York Times-sponsored piece entitled, Let's Give Up on the Constitution:

AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions. Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. [Emphasis Added]

This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation. Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the president's term should last or whether Congress should consist of two houses. Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly the way we favor. There is even something to be said for an elite body like the Supreme Court with the power to impose its views of political morality on the country. What would change is not the existence of these institutions, but the basis on which they claim legitimacy. [Emphasis Added]

If we acknowledged what should be obvious — that much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions — we might have a very different attitude about the obligation to obey. It would become apparent that people who disagree with us about the Constitution are not violating a sacred text or our core commitments. Instead, we are all invoking a common vocabulary to express aspirations that, at the broadest level, everyone can embrace. Of course, that does not mean that people agree at the ground level. If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.

If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by "We the people" is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.

Just one day earlier, on December 29th, Donald Kaul, was compelled by current events to come out of retirement and pen a column for his old newspaper, the Des Moines Register, titled, Nation Needs a New Agenda On Guns. [Note: This link is to a Fox News story, as the Des Moines Register is not a visitor-friendly site. The original column may be able to be accessed here.]

Repeal the Second Amendment. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right. Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. I would also raze the organization's headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that's optional. Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that "prying the guns from their cold, dead hands" thing works for me. Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control. And if that didn't work, I'd adopt radical measures.

• The Libertarian Enterprise

• Sodahead

From the United States Constitution — Section 7: All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; ...

GOP Leader Says Give Obama New Debt Limit Powers

[I]t would allow Republican lawmakers to avoid having to support an increase in the debt limit, something many of them find odious. "Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people, which is to do the responsible thing and ensure the government doesn't default on its obligations," McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor.

Any such proposals could also be used by Republicans in the 2012 campaigns, if only to blunt attacks made by Democrats.

• The President should not be given the ability to arbitrarily raise the debt ceiling.
  
  
• Stop undermining the separation of powers embodied in the U.S. Constitution.
  
  
• The debt ceiling should not be raised by any amount, under any circumstances.
  
  
• The 2012 budget which begins this October, must be balanced.
  
  
• Balance the budget with federal spending reductions, not tax increases.
  
  
• Immediately de-fund and then repeal Obamacare.
  
  
• Every American citizen should have the choice to opt-out of all entitlement programs.
  
  
• We are tracking their actions and we will remember each and every one at the next election.

Name	State	Phone No.	Email Contact
Mitch McConnell	KY	202-224-2541	Email
Lisa Murkowski	AK	202-224-6665	Email
Jon Kyl	AZ	202-224-4521	Email
John McCain	AZ	202-224-2235	Email
Mark Kirk	IL	202-224-2845	Email
Richard Lugar	IN	202-224-4814	Email
Scott Brown	MA	202-228-2646	Email
Susan Collins	ME	202-224-2523	Email
Olympia Snowe	ME	202-224-5344]	Email
Mike Johanns	NE	202-224-4224	Email
Tom Coburn	OK	202-224-5754	Email
Lyndsey Graham	SC	202-224-5972	Email
Lamar Alexander	TN	202-224-4944	Email

Name	State	Phone No.	Email Contact
Dave Reichert	WA	206-275-3438	Email

Dear Mr. Brown: Congratulations on your win last night. I was one of the many from outside MA that provided financial support for your campaign leading to this great day for both you and the entire country. But Mr. Brown, please do not let us down. You have been sent to Congress for one purpose: to do everything you can to stop the socialist juggernaut from crushing the spirit of America. Your job is to defend the rights of every individual and to cut the scope of government back wherever possible, doing what you can to return it to its singular function of protecting our rights, and nothing more. So once you have cast your vote against the health care legislation as you have promised, remain true to the principles of the people who elected you and continue the valiant fight to uphold the U.S. Constitution. If you do that, you will stand at the forefront of the Second American Revolution and earn yourself a place in history. Do not be seduced by the congressional seat and decide, as so many others have, that being elected has somehow granted you the wisdom and the powers to assume the role of making decisions for and manipulating the lives of the citizens of this country. Always remember that we are each sovereign individuals with the constitutionally guaranteed right to our own lives. We are not wards of the state. This means that we each get to make the decisions for ourselves as we best see fit, and that right is not limited to health care, but to every aspect of how we pursue our lives and every decision we make in disposing of our earnings. As the Constitution states: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" — Fifth Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." — Ninth Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" — Tenth Amendment The United States government was not granted the powers to make health care decisions for the citizens, and therefore, it remains a right of each individual. And that same reasoning holds true whether it pertains to deciding whether to invest in an energy efficient appliance, a fuel efficient car, determining whether and what type of mortgage to obtain, and whether we wish to provide financial help to a poor individual, a failing company or a foreign country in the aftermath of an earthquake. Always remember that the products of each person's efforts are their property, to dispose of as they - and only they - see fit. And the choices that they make are their means of pursuing their own happiness. The single proper role of federal government is to be a protector of the rights of the citizens. Every time the government steps outside that role and passes legislation to regulate business or personal actions, it has transformed from a protector into a violator of those rights. The majority of the text of the U.S. Constitution was written with the express purpose of constraining government so that it would not violate its mandate and become an agent of oppression. As you can clearly see, those protective measures were long ago breached and this country has been on a rapidly accelerating slide towards totalitarianism. Please make it your single-minded purpose to go to Washington D.C. to put the governmental genie back in its bottle and restore the right of every citizen to determine their own future. So again, I send you my best wishes for your victory and am excited to see you head to Washington and help us all in the struggle to recover our lost liberty. Sincerely, C. Jeffery Small

Scott Brown's website:	www.brownforussenate.com
Scott Brown's email address:	scott.p.brown@state.ma.us
Scott Brown's street address:	200 Reservoir Street Needham, MA 02494

1. Section 3403 of the Senate health bill establishes a commission to cut Medicare spending, and proclaims that the law cannot be changed or repealed by future legislators! In this way, the Senate attempts to assign dictatorial powers to its own actions.

2. There is a $100 million allocation to an unnamed "academic health center" meating certain "qualifications". It turns out that those "qualifications" result in the money going to Chris Dodd's University of Connecticut. This is nothing more than an attempt to slip the provision past the public by outright deception.

3. The requirement forcing every U.S. citizen to purchase health insurance is a clear violation of the powers allocated to Congress by the Constitution.

4. The legislation mandates enrollment in an insurance plan that dictates that doctors are only paid if they act as directed by the government, thereby imposing the government directly between the doctor and patient. There is no constitutional authority for the government to intercede in this manner.

5. The legislation caps private insurance company profit margins below current levels, which is a taking of the property of the business owners and shareholders without just compensation.

"The Nevada Democrat [Harry Reid] agreed to a series of concessions on abortion and other issues demanded by Nelson"

"The Nebraskan [Nelson] also won increased federal funds to cover his state's cost of covering an expanded Medicaid population at a cost that one Democratic official put at $45 million over a decade"

"Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., claimed credit for a last-minute, $10 billion increase in funding for community health centers nationwide" "Another provision in Reid's changes provides additional federal funding for hospitals in Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming and the Dakotas, although no cost estimate was available." "The revised bill also calls for a .9 percent increase in the Medicare payroll tax on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Reid's earlier bill had a smaller hike, .5 percent." "The bill also taxes high-cost insurance plans"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security, ..." [Emphasis added]

"Evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us"

• Step up your efforts to write and phone the White House and all members of Congress. Commit a certain amount of time each week to write new letters and make repeated calls to the most deserving politicians. Don't tell them that you disagree with their policies — tell them that you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it any longer! Let them know in no uncertain terms that the gloves are coming off and that you are going to do everything in your power to dismantle the corrupt machinery of government and take back your constitutionally guaranteed rights to your life, liberty and property. When they are receiving this message from thousands of people all across the country, they are going to get very nervous. Make it your personal mission to make Nancy Pelosi cry. And don't stop with her! Contact information for all congressional members can be found at Congress Merge.

• Write articles and letters-to-the-editor of your local paper expressing your outrage over the constitutional transgressions being exercised by Congress and the President. Help transition the political dialog in country away from less important issues of specific tax or legislative proposals to the critical issues of constitutional rights. As Nancy Pelosi and other politicians have demonstrated, they are completely unprepared to defend themselves on constitutional grounds. This makes them very vulnerable to attack from this quarter.

• Get involved with your local Tea Party chapter and help organize local and state protests. Generate as much noise and publicity as possible. Again, the message should now become not one of simple disagreement, but a vocalization of honest outrage and a principled unwillingness to voluntarily comply with the intent of Congress and the President. Become conscientious objectors - unwilling to participate in your own enslavement.

• Start planning your strategy for the 2010 Tax Day Tea Party on April 15th. Organize family and friends and come up with a creative idea that will generate publicity and convey your personal message to as many people as possible.

• Make plans to go to Washington DC when the next Tea Party march gets scheduled in 2010. If the press thought that 1.2 million protesters was "a few thousand", let's see what they have to say when we make it 3 million or more!

• Show your commitment and make a symbolic statement with a Personal Declaration of Independence, by adding your name to the John Galt Pledge, if you have not done so already.

• Link to this article on your personal blogs and help spread the word that the time for action is upon us.

A PATRIOT'S OPEN LETTER By Bradley Harrington "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." — Thomas Jefferson, Letter To Benjamin Rush, 1800 — An Open Letter To Our "Representatives" In The United States Government: As a patriot, and as a former military veteran, I need to tell you a few things. I know that you folks have a lot to do, and don't really want to take the time to listen to me. But I strongly suggest that you do; for that attitude, you see—of being to "busy" to listen to the people who populate this country—is part of the problem I need to discuss with you. For hundreds of years, people like me have kept this nation strong and free. Many of us are currently serving America in the Middle East; a lot of us still surviving served in Vietnam. Our fathers served in Korea; our grandfathers in World War II; our great-grandfathers in World War I. All the way back, we have fought, sweated, battled, bled and died to protect our nation from attack. Whenever you called upon us to serve, we were there. We didn't question your right to send us off to war; we assumed that you had our ideals at heart; we believed that you knew what you were doing, and we unhesitatingly took out whoever you named as our enemies. Hundreds of thousands of us were killed in that process—but, as long as we knew that we were defending liberty's torch, even the laying down of our lives was not too high a price to pay. In the Revolutionary War, we fought to separate ourselves from the tyranny of King George III and to establish this nation, "conceived in liberty," as a safe haven for individuals to peacefully live their lives and pursue their happiness. Those were, and are, our ideals, and we have always viewed America, her history and her institutions as mankind's last, best and greatest hope. And, for many decades, our efforts and achievements enabled our nation to shine as a magnificent beacon to the "poor and huddled masses" yearning to be free. "Patriotism," to us, you see, is not blindly following our leaders wherever they might lead: it is respect for, and admiration of, the principles of freedom that animated the creation of the United States. It is a profound passion we have, at the very core of our souls, in regard to man's unconquerable mind and the indomitability of the human spirit. Patriotism, to us, is not loyalty to a government, but loyalty to an idea, and it drives all of our thoughts and actions: the idea that men and women have a right to be free. Have you been doing your job as well as we have been doing ours? Have you been as true to the ideals our nation was founded upon as we have? Or have you used your power to "engage in a long train of abuses and usurpations?" (Declaration of Independence, 1776.) Today, we observe that you and your laws have reduced our economy to a shambles; have aided and abetted the destruction of our social order; hampered the processes of our courts; stifled our productive capacities; and ensnared the citizens of this nation in a web of offensive and arbitrary decrees that can be designed for one purpose only: to turn us into serfs. And, now, as you sit in your citadels of power in Washington, D.C., you tell us, when we protest, that you are "busy." Busy doing what? Taking away our liberties and turning this once-proud, once-free nation into a shoddy, second-class "welfare" state? I respectfully suggest that you'd better think again: for not all of us are mindless automatons to be led like sheep to the slaughter. Many of us know our history, and have read the Declaration, and are fully aware of the part that says: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it..." We military patriots haven't perished in one war after another so that you, our so-called "representatives," could destroy the ideals we have always combated to defend; we fought one revolution to protect those ideals in 1776. So, take notice: if you, in your colossally arrogant, controlling ignorance, continue to take us down this corridor of coercion, we might just decide that it is time to do it again.

Bradley Harrington is a former United States Marine and a free-lance writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

"When I was growing up, there was a draft," he said. "We fought World War II, Korea, and Vietnam on the draft, and nobody liked it, but it reached out and pulled in Americans from all walks of life, and that wasn't a bad thing at all. "We are a nation of 300 million people and fewer than one percent of us wear the uniform and do all of the serving and sacrificing for all of the other 299 million, and they've been worked pretty hard these last eight years." The U.S. dropped the draft system after the Vietnam War, but Galloway said he believes the United States would benefit from some program that compelled young men and women into national service, creating more appreciation for the liberties they enjoy as Americans.

"I don't think that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set things up. They thought you had to earn your freedom and democracy"

"certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.    [Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.] By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.    [People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).]

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed"

If we want a Republic, we have to work to keep it. Now, more than ever, more Americans realize the truth of this and are taking action. We will succeed. As one Albuquerque Tea Party member recently said, "I will never give up. Never. We will take back our country." Yes, we will. It's up to us to restore and keep our republic.

MMMM MMM MMMMM: Exposing Obama's Classroom Brainwashers, And Why They Can't Be Stopped

"Nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires a state or local government to operate public schools. On one level, the existence of free public schools is thus a privilege that the state is presumptively free to extend or not extend to its student-citizens as it pleases."

Mandatory community service programs are increasingly becoming a standard part of the curriculum in many public schools across the country. For example, about 500 public school districts, including those in Washington D.C., Atlanta, and Detroit have adopted programs. A main reason for this increase in mandatory community service programs is because President Clinton has been strongly stressing the importance of volunteerism among the nation's students.   [Emphasis added]

The court case Steirer v. Bethlehem Area School District provides a good example of the controversy involved with mandatory community service. The Bethlehem Area School District requires that every public high school student perform sixty hours of unpaid service during the student's four years of high school. The students must complete these hours after school, during weekends, or during the summer. [...] Lynn Steirer, a student, disagreed with the mandate. Therefore she did not receive her diploma. [...] Her lawyer, Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, argued unsuccessfully in federal district and appeals courts that mandated volunteerism violates the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. Bullock also claimed that such service interfered with the First Amendment right to free speech because required community service forces students to express specific beliefs. [...] [L]ower courts, including a federal appeals court, dismissed Bullock's Thirteenth Amendment argument and rejected the notion that required community service is modern-day slavery. In order for the practice to be unconstitutional, the district would have to legally or physically punish students who decline to participate. Courts also rejected the Free Speech argument because the students could either choose to participate in the district's programs or design their own.   [Emphasis added]

As with all innovations in U.S. public life, such programs are inevitably challenged in the courts. At first blush, the challenges appear plausible: These programs are forced labor of sorts, an oxymoronic coerced volunteerism, the imposition of a particular philosophic vision of civic duty and community life on the whole student populace, and the cry that this just can't be constitutional is at least colorably serious.      [...] Broad objections are likely to be grounded in the claim that community service is a form of involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, or a deprivation of the students' or parents' liberty protected under the substantive due process principles that have evolved from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.      [...] Before examining specific constitutional challenges to community service programs, one must contend with a broad issue that sweeps across all discussion of the constitutionality of such programs. The argument is that community service programs amount to nothing more than conditions attached to the "privilege" of a free public education and thus pose no constitutional problems whatsoever. While students may be forced by compulsory education laws into some accredited school until they reach a specified age, no student is literally forced to attend public schools. Those students who can afford the cost may attend private schools instead. This argument is a variant of one of the oldest and most perplexing issues in constitutional law, that posed by the "right-privilege" distinction and its doctrinal nemesis, the "doctrine of unconstitutional conditions." The right-privilege distinction is an old constitutional theme. The distinction is grounded in a dichotomy between "rights" and mere "privileges." In their classic conception, rights are interests held by individuals independent of the state. [...] In contrast to rights, privileges are interests created by the grace of the state and dependent for their existence on the state's sufferance. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires a state or local government to operate public schools. On one level, the existence of free public schools is thus a privilege that the state is presumptively free to extend or not extend to its student-citizens as it pleases. [...] The right-privilege distinction in U.S. constitutional law operated on the simple premise that government is entitled to grant citizens privileges on the condition that they surrender or curtail the exercise of constitutional freedoms that they would otherwise enjoy. [...] The tough-minded — if not downright mean-spirited — logic of the right-privilege distinction has never gone down easily in U.S. constitutional thought and has always been held in check by a counter-doctrine known as the "doctrine of unconstitutional conditions." [...] the Court emphatically declared the following: "For at least a quarter-century, this Court has made clear that even though a person has no 'right' to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests — especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited."      [Skipping considerable information] If a court can be persuaded that the community service is indeed genuinely integrated with the function and mission of the schools and the concomitant benefits of public education the student is receiving, the court will be much more disposed toward approving the program. With this broad unconstitutional conditions framework in mind, analysis then turns to the specific constitutional freedoms implicated by community service proposals.      [...] The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the wake of the Civil War: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." A student challenging a community service program would not be so brazen as to characterize such programs as literally akin to the peculiar institution of African slavery that was the historical impetus for the Thirteenth Amendment. However, the student might very well argue with a degree of surface verisimilitude that coerced public service is nonetheless both servitude and involuntary, and thus barred by the broader meanings that might be ascribed to the Amendment. Indeed, there are pronouncements from the Supreme Court that appear to invite such broader understandings of the Amendment's coverage.      [...] The mere claim that some percentage of one's labor or wealth has been commandeered by a state for the benefit of others will not, standing alone, be understood as constituting involuntary servitude. Much of the modern welfare state is structured around the redistribution of income and wealth. At a broad conceptual level, to the extent one's income is taken by the state through taxes for distribution to others, an involuntary servitude is being placed on one's labor. In a progressive taxation system, most citizens work some days for the government and some days for themselves. When tax dollars are redistributed, most citizens might be seen as working some days for the benefit of others. Yet this form of indirect labor transfer, and many other more direct impositions of labor for the service of others, have never been interpreted as violations of the Thirteenth Amendment and could not be interpreted as such without stretching the purpose of the Amendment wildly beyond its animating purpose and historical context. Similarly, requirements that citizens perform certain civic duties, such as jury service, have not been construed as involuntary servitude. The most gripping example is the military draft, a conscription that not only entails a complete deprivation of one's ordinary liberty, but the risk of crippling injury or death in the service of one's country. The military draft has been rhetorically attacked as a form of involuntary servitude that violates the Thirteenth Amendment, but, despite the hyperbolic utility of the argument, it has never been taken seriously by the Supreme Court. As early as the 1918 Selective Draft Law Cases, the Court stated that "as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement." Against this general backdrop, Thirteenth Amendment challenges to school community service programs should not be deemed viable. Community service programs are simply too far removed from anything that might be persuasively labeled as a badge or incident of slavery to run afoul of the Thirteenth Amendment. [Emphasis added]

"Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution."

Below is our declaration of orders we will NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic.
1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state's legislature and governor.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control" during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

"With all due respect to Jimmy Carter, the racist component of Obama-hatred has been undeniable since the summer of 2008, when Sarah Palin rallied all-white mobs to the defense of the 'real America.' "

"The White House was right not to second Carter's motion and cue another 'national conversation about race.' No matter how many teachable moments we have, some people won't be taught."

It's obvious that those of us who disapprove of Barack Obama's Marxist philosophy and altruistic morality of sacrifice are all simply racist. Why? Well because Frank Rich says so, that's why! That has to be the reason, because such an incredibly insulting statement has no other supporting evidence. Frank, like Jimmy Carter and others, has the god-like power to look into my soul and know, with a certainty that allows him to proclaim it to the world in the pages of the New York Times, that I am a low class bigot. And because of that "fact", Frank is able to dismiss anything that I might have to say as simply the loony rantings of a moron.
Thanks Frank. I was really confused. I thought that there might be some issues here concerning the abridgment of individual rights; limiting the government's powers to what is enumerated in the Constitution; the shift in our country from a philosophy of individualism to socialism; the right to keep and dispose of my property as I, not the government, see fit; the short and long range trouble being created by an exploding national debt; the inability of the CIA to function in the wake of retroactive criminal investigations; the destruction of our financial institutions as all innovation is crushed under threats of 'clawbacks' and legal prosecution if you take any risks; ... to name just a few. But now I see that all of those "issues" are really just rationalizations I use to cover up my intense hatred of our President because his skin is a few shades darker than my own. Thank you Frank for your moral enlightenment. Oops, just kidding on that last comment!
The truth is that Frank Rich, Jimmy Carter, and many others operate from an implicit position that those of us who disagree with their outlook and philosophy ARE actually morons. Because anybody with an IQ of 80 would obviously agree with them! The dissenting Glen Beck is just another moron - a broken clock - that could only be right occasionally by accident, but certainly not by dint of intellectual rigor and a proper analysis of the facts. Actually, this makes me start to wonder who the real bigots are?
Finally, I would like to comment on what a joke it is to refer to Ayn Rand, and then link, as though it were relevant and insightful, to an article by Jonathan Chait in The New Republic. Yes, it's a feel-good piece for everyone who already thinks that Rand was also just another moron. But this reference is not going to do anyone any good if they want to actually discover what Rand, and her philosophy of Objectivism have to say that is relevant to what is happening in our country today. There are plenty of reference sites on the internet that people can explore in order to get a more balanced picture of Rand. What I would recommend is picking up a copy of her book, Atlas Shrugged, and read it. You might be surprised to discover an ominous set of parallels to today's events being depicted, despite the book having been written over 50 years ago. There is a fun game you can play while reading it. See if you can find your favorite politicians and commentators depicted, making statements and taking actions that could come right off of the front page of today's papers. Why, if you read closely enough, you might even find a bit of Frank Rich in there!
Regards,
--
C. Jeffery Small

• We demand that the government protect, not violate, the constitutionally guaranteed rights of every independent citizen

• Phase one: Promote this site in order to reach a wide audience and allow every liberty-minded person the opportunity to contribute their support to this effort, creating a document that acquires power through the number of individuals standing behind it.

• Phase two: Attack the government's proposals on ideological grounds by demonstrating that in violating rather than supporting our individual rights, they have no constitutional authority to proceed.