240 Years Ago Today, Paul Revere’s Midnight Ride

paul-reveres-rideAn excellent book published in 1912 of the True Story of Paul Revere by Charles Ferris Gettemy has been the greatest, (I think) collection of information about Paul Revere’s life and his famous work for liberty.

It can be found at archive.org, and I have exerpted it liberally to commemorate today’s 240th anniversary of that ride. You can read the book online here.

Most of the following is in Revere’s own words, I bolded some of the sentences and phrases which to me, show the true character of Revere. He was pugnacious and restive, everything he did, was to gain liberty for America.

No one can familiarize himself with the
temper of the Boston populace on that
April night, and with the character and
personality of Paul Revere, and not ap-
preciate that in the whole town none was
in a better position than he to know what
the plans of the British were. He was in the
thick of everything that was taking place.
”On Tuesday evening, the 18th,”‘ he (Revere)
writes, ” it was observed that a number of
soldiers were marching toward the bottom
of the Common,” which meant that they
were to be transported across the river to
Charlestown or Cambridge, instead of mak-
ing the long march around by way of Bos-
ton Neck. No need of any lanterns being
hung out in a church spire to inform him
whether the red-coats were going by land
or by sea! He knew all about this long
before he got into his row-boat that night.
But let him tell his own story: *

” About ten o’clock, Dr. Warren sent in
great haste for me, and begged that I
would immediately set off for Lexington,
where Messrs. Hancock and Adams were,
and acquaint them of the movement, and
that it was thought they were the objects.
When I got to Dr. Warren’s house,^ I
found he had sent an express by land to
Lexington — a Mr. William Dawes. The
Sunday before, by desire of Dr. Warren,
I had been to Lexington, to Messrs. Han-
cock and Adams, who were at the Rev.
Mr. Clark’s. I returned at night through
Charlestown; there I agreed w^ith a Colonel
Conant and some other gentlemen, that if
the British went out by water, we would
show two lanthorns in the North Church
steeple and if by land, one as a signal
; for
we were apprehensive it would be difficult
to cross the Charles River, or get over
Boston Neck. I left Dr. Warren, called
upon a friend, and desired him to make the
signals. I then went home, took my boots
and surtout, went to the north part of the
town, where I kept a boat; two friends
rowed me across Charles River a little to
the eastward where the Somerset man-of-
war lay. It was then young flood, the ship
was winding, and the moon rising. They
landed me on the Charlestown side. When
I got into town, I met Colonel Conant and
several others; they said they had seen our
signals. I told them what was acting, and
went to get me a horse; I got a horse of
Deacon Larkin.”

Mounted on Deacon Larkin’s horse, he set
off to alarm the country, but had not gone
far on the road through Charlestown when
he discerned just ahead of him two British
officers. He turned quickly, and, though
pursued, made good his escape, passing
through Medford and up to Menotomy
(now Arlington). ”In Medford,” he re-
cords, “ I awaked the captain of the minute
men ; and after that, I alarmed almost every
house, till I got to Lexington.

” After I had been there about half an
hour M^ Dawes arrived, who came from
Adams^ went over to Wobum^ to the Rev. Mr. Jones,
I think she said. The ladies remained and saw the
battle commence. Mrs. Scott says the British fired
first, she is sure. This was a point much contested at
the time, and many depositions were taken to prove the
fact that the British were the actual aggressors. One
of the first British bullets whizzed by old Mrs. Hancock’s
head, as she was looking out of the door, and struck the
barn ; she cried out, What is that ? they told her it
was a bullet, and she must take care of herself. Mrs.
Scott was at the chamber window looking at the fight.
She says two of the wounded men were brought into
the house. One of them, whose head was grazed by a
ball, insisted that he was dead ; the other, who was
shot in the arm, behaved better. The first was more
scared than hurt.

” After the British passed on towards Concord, they
received a letter from Mr. H. informing them where
he and Mr. Adams were, wishing them to get into the
carriage and come over and bring the salmon that
they had had sent to them for dinner. This they carried
over in the carriage, and had got it nicely cooked and were
Boston, over the neck; we set off for Con-
cord, & were overtaken by a young gent^

just sitting down to it^ when in came a man from Lex-
ington, whose house was upon the main road, and who
cleared out, leaving his wife and family at home, as
soon as he saw the British bayonets glistening as they
descended the hills on their return from Concord. Half
frightened to death, he exclaimed, ^The British are
coming ! the British are coming ! my wife ‘s in eternity
now.’ Mr. H. and Mr. Adams supposing the British
troops were at hand, went into the swamp and staid
till the alarm was over.

^^ Upon their return to the house, Mrs. Scott told Mr.
H. that having left her father in Boston, she should
return to him to-morrow. ^ No, madam,’ said he, ^ you
shall not return as long as there is a British
bayonet left in Boston.’ She, with the spirit of a
woman, said, ‘ Recollect Mr. Hancock, I am not under
your control yet. I shall go in to my father to-morrow ;’
for, she said, at that time I should have been very glad
to have got rid of him, but her aunt, as she afterwards
was, would not let her go. She did not go into Boston
for three years afterwards ; for when they left this part
of the country, they went to Fairfield, in Connecticut,
and staid with Mr. Burr, the uncle of Aaron Burr, who
was there. Aaron, she says, was very attentive to her,
And her aunt was very jealous of him, lest he should
gain her affections, and defeat her purpose of connecting
her with her nephew. Mr. Burr, she said, was a hand-
named Prescot, who belonged to Concord,
& was going home; when we had got about
half way from Lexington to Concord, the
other two, stopped at a House to awake
the man, I kept along, when I had got
about 200 yards ahead of them; I saw two
officers as before, I called to my company
to come up, saying here was two of them
(for I had told them what M^ Devens told
me, and of my being stoped) in an instant,
I saw four of them, who rode up to me,
with their pistols in their hands, said G d
d n you stop if you go an inch further,
you are a dead Man,
‘ immediatly M^ Pres-
cot came up we attempted to git thro them,
but they kept before us, and swore if we
did not turn into that pasture, they would
blow our brains out
, (they had placed them-
selves opposite to a pair of Barrs, and had
some young man^ of very pretty fortune, but her aunt
would not leave them a moment together^ and in August
she married Mr. H., and went on to Philadelphia, to the
Congress, of which Mr. H. was President at the time
she married himtaken the Barrs down) they forced us in,
when we had got in, M^ Prescot said put
on, He took to the left, I to the right
towards a w^ood, at the bottom of the Pas-
ture intending, when I gained that, to jump
my Horse & run afoot; just as I reached
it, out started six officers, seized my bridle,
put their Pistols to my Breast, ordered me
to dismount, which I did: One of them,
who appeared to have the Command there,
and much of a Gentleman, asked me where
I came from; I told him, he asked what
time I left it, I told him, he seemed sur-
prised said S^ may I have your name, I
answered my name is Revere, what said he,
Paul Revere; I answered yes; the others
abused much, but he told me not to be
afraid, no one should hurt me; I told him
they would miss their aim.
He said they
should not, they were only awaiting for
some deserters they expected down the
Road; I told him I knew better, I knew
what they were after; that I had alarmed
the country all the way up, that their Boats
were catch’d aground, and I should have
500 men there soori^ one of them said they
had 1,500 coming^
he seemed surprised and
rode off into the road, and informed them
who took me, they came down immediatly
on a full gallop, one of them (whom I
since learned was Major Mitchell of the
5th Reg.) Clap^ his Pistol to my head, and
said he was going to ask me some ques-
tions, if I did not tell him the truth, he
would blow my brains out.
I told him I
esteemed myself a Man of truth, that he
had stopped me on the highway, & made
me a prisoner, I knew not by what right;
I would tell him the truth; I was not
He then asked me, the same ques-
tions that the other did, and many more,
but was more particular; I gave him much
the same answers; he then Ordered me to
mount my horse, they first searched me for
pistols, when I was mounted the Major
took the reins out of my hand, and said by
G d S^ you are not to ride with reins
I assure you; and gave them to an officer
on my right, to lead me, he then Ordered
4 men out of the Bushes, & to mount their
horses; they were countrymen whom they
had stopped, who were going home; then
ordered us to march. He said to me ‘ We
are now going towards your friends, and
if you attempt to run, or we are insulted,
we will blow your Brains out.’
When we
had got into the Road they formed a circle,
and ordered the prisoners in the centre, &
to lead me in the front. We rid towards
Lexington, a quick pace; They very often
insulted me calling me Rebel &c. &c. after
we had got about a mile, I was given to
the Serjant, to lead, he was Ordered to
take out his pistol, (he rode with a hanger,)
and if I ran, to execute the major’s sen-
tence; When we got within about half a
mile of the meeting house, we heard a gun
fired; the Major asked me what it was for,
I told him to alarm the country; he or-
dered the four prisoners to dismount, they
did, then one of the officers dismounted and
cutt the Bridles, and saddels, off the Horses,
& drove them away, and told the men they
might go about their business; I asked the
Major to dismiss me, he said he would carry
me, lett the consequence be what it will.
He then Ordered us to march, when we
got within sight of the meeting House, we
heard a Volley of guns fired, as I supposed
at the tavern, as an alarm; the Major or-
dered us to halt, he asked me how far it
was to Cambridge, and many more ques-
tions, which I answered; he then asked the
Serjant, if his horse was tired, he said yes;
he Ordered him to take my horse; I dis-
mounted, the Serjant mounted my horse;
they cutt the Bridles & Saddle of the Ser-
jants horse, & rode off, down the road. I
then went to the house where I left Mes^
Adams and Hancock, and told them what
had happined, their friends advised them
to go out of the way; I went with them,
about two miles across road: after resting
myself I sett off with another man to go
back to the Tavern; to enquire the News;
when we got there, we were told the troops
were, within two miles. We went into the
Tavern to git a Trunk of papers, belong-
ing to Col. Hancock, before we left the
Housed I saw the ministeral Troops from
the Chamber window, we made haste, &
had to pass thro’ our Militia, who were on
a green behind the meeting house, to the
number as I supposed, about 50 or 60. I
went thro them; as I passed I heard the
commanding officer speake to his men to
this purpose, ‘ Lett the troops pass by, &
don’t molest them, without They begin first.’
I had to go a cross Road, but had not got
half Gun shot off, when the Ministeral
Troops appeared in sight, behinde the
Meeting House; they made a short halt,
when one gun was fired, I heard the re-
port, turned my head, and saw the smoake
in front of the Troops, they immediatly gave
a great shout, ran a few paces, and then the
whole fired. I could first distinguish Ireg-
ular fireing, which I supposed was the ad-
vance guard, and then platoons, at this
time I could not see our Militia for they
were covered from me, by a house at the
bottom of the Street.” ^

* Revere’s narrative ; first published as a letter
to Jeremy Belknap^ Secretary of the Massachusetts Historical Society
in 1798. See the Society Collections, Vol. 5, pp. 106-112.
The narrative was republished in 1878^ Proceedings,
Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. 16, pp. 371-376.

Ted Cruz Quote of the Day

Ted CruzThe 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty.

Senator Ted Cruz 4/17/15

The quote, panned by the New York Times as well as Salon.com, is the accurate reasoning of why the Founders included the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights which was included in the Constitution and ratified by the states.

For your personal information, here is a repost of my friend Task’s collection of Second Amendment Quotes:

A Treasury of Quotes About Our 2nd Amendment

by on JANUARY 3, 2013

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
— Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
— Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
— Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
–John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
–Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
–Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
–Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
— Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

“The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …”
— James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
— Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
— George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …”
— Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
— Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”
— Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone …”
— Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
— Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms … The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”
— Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

“The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally … enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
— Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

” … most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.”
— James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

“The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon…. [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”
— Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress … to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…. ”
–Samuel Adams


Is Infowars a Hotbed for Neo-Nazis?

tinfoilJust asking a question.

I never go to Infowars, I think Alex Jones is a nut.  And I hate it when Drudge links to his site, and you never know you are redirected to Inforwars until it’s too late.

However, since I know that the staff over there seem to be Putin sympathizers, and have often praised and defended Putin, and Putin just lifted the ban on missiles to Iran, I figured I’d go have a look at what they had to say about it.

All they had was a repost of an article by The Telegraph, but the comments beneath the article were mostly insane, fringe, lunatic hatred of Jews.

And it struck me that no matter what any article may be talking about over there, there is always some element of Jew hatred; blaming the Jews for “occupying Israel,” and questioning the holocaust, and questioning the lineage of the type of Jew that lives in Israel, and claims that Jesus wasn’t a Jew, and trying to ascribe basically, all the world’s ills on the Jewish race.

Putting that all in context with the rise of antisemitism across the world, across Europe, across our own nation in college campuses, and the clear Obama administration antisemitism, I began to think about the grave danger those anonymous vipers commenting at the fringe lunatic site are to liberty.

Almost a decade ago, I found a pocket constitution at a rummage sale which must have been at some point distributed by Infowars and Alex Jones, because it had the website’s images and info at the front and back.  This was before I had internet access and didn’t know who Alex Jones was.  But I wanted the constitution, and it also had the Declaration of Independence as well, and I was happy to find it.

So I think about those people who are unknowing, like I was, who are really interested, as I am, in learning more and more about the founding of the country, and we have to navigate our way through and past these land mine crazies like those at Infowars.

The Neo-Nazi commenters over at Infowars expose Alex Jones for who he seeks as an audience.  It is a little like the Steve Scalise scandal a few months back, when he was found to have gone to an event years ago, put on by a well-known former KKK member, who, in Scalise’s defense, mentioned that he and Scalise never talked about “the Jewish question.”  There was no way Scalise didn’t know who he was talking to that day, when he was seeking support for removing preferential treatment for blacks in government housing, and using the money to finance a few world class athletic teams.

The same goes for Alex Jones.  He knows his audience, and he knows how to throw out conspiracy theories and get pretty close to the truth on some things.  But the people that flock to him have an axe to grind with the world, it is just like the left.  Someone has always done something to screw them over, and it’s the Jews or the police, or the war on drugs, or something, someone else.  This line of thinking resides on the left.  The right, republicanism, is self-governance.

When you realize that you can’t change history, and you can’t fix others, and you take care of yourself and your family, you are living in the mindset of America.  There is no worse poison than the brain-scramble you encounter when people who claim to be constitutionalists are forever blaming someone else for their screwed up lives and bad attitudes.

And a lot of them visit Infowars regularly.


Anti-Semitism’s Oldest Alliance Rears Its Ugly Head Again

palestinian best seller
Mein Kampf distributed by Palestinian Authority in 2003

The Drudge Report had a link to aWashington Post article that drew attention to some nasty anti-Semitic chanting and taunting happening during Europe’s football (soccer) games.

Chants during soccer games have been on the rise, attacking Jews.  The article lists several outrageous taunts such as, “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas,” and, “My father was in the commandos, my mother was in the SS, together they burned Jews, because Jews burn the best!” and more.

The article quotes two defenders of the Jewish people about the nature of these racial outbursts.  Admitting that soccer has always been plagued with racism, one, the director of international relations at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said, “I think there is a shift going on.  The troublemakers way back to the 1980s … were neo-Nazis. Today it’s a combination. It’s a new alliance between neo-Nazis and jihadists. In the first instance it’s the old anti-Semitism but also there is an understanding that as you attack the Jew as the quintessential symbol of Europe, you also attack the West and you attack the delicate fabric of liberal democracy.”

But really, the alliance isn’t new.

All of this cuts to the heart of what is happening now, and though it was clear during WWII that the values of Western Civilization were under attack, as the man quoted above made clear, it should not be news that Islamist jihadi’s and anti-Semite neo-Nazis have gotten bolder in their hate.Attempting to set apart Hitler’s genocidal actions in removing the Jewish people from Europe from the Muslim Brotherhood’s work, in conjunction with Hitler, to terrorize and remove Jews from Egypt, seems like a fear, perhaps, to avoid the truth.  But it’s well documented that Hitler saw the potential for alliance with the Mufti Amin al-Hussieni, since they both shared an anti-Semitic ideology.

The idea, however, that the president of this nation might not know about these cross-over ideologies has been crushed with a recent interview.  Obama said, “You have every right to be concerned about Iran. This is a regime that at the highest levels has expressed the desire to destroy Israel, that has denied the Holocaust, that has expressed venomous anti-Semitic ideas and is a big country with a big population and has a sophisticated military.”

I worry about our youth, as they succumb to ideologies expressed by the left in this country, who also have been silent in the face of anti-Semitism in our own nation.  Some say nothing out of fear of angering Islamists, and some say nothing because they share the same anti-Semitic ideology themselves.

But mostly, I worry that people are afraid to see what they see.  There is a dark cloud hanging right now over, what seems the entire world, while the president is involved in a high-stakes poker game – one that he is currently losing – at least the PR part of it, and he backhands the Israeli Prime Minister by working to unseat him and then treats him as another opposition party flak. I worry that the American people will be treated as being at fault for a president who has turned our foreign policy upside down.

There should be no surprise that we are witnessing, as always, people who want to rule the minds, actions, and deeds of the world’s entire population.  And there should be no surprise that radical Islam wishes to bring down Western Civilization, just as Hitler wished to purify the world’s races so the Aryan race could rule.  Within that ideology, is the source of shackles and genocide, and American and Western thought is the only antidote.

This article first appeared at CNS News

Tighten the Republican Platform on Marriage

Image via Conservative Review
Image via Conservative Review

Last week, National Journal had an article titled, “Stealth Assault.” In it, several pro-gay marriage advocates are quoted calling attention to the effort by the GOP to change the Republican platform on marriage. Why is that the central theme? Because it is the issue of the day that has the hyper-curiosity of the left, and, kneeling to their narrative, some Republicans believe promoting traditional marriage will hurt their political chances in 2016.

Although gay marriage has become a hot-button issue in the political realm, it hardly even rates on the scale of priority issues the average American expects the nation to be focused on. But Barack Obama’s “evolution” on gay marriage and his defense of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on DOMA and federal employee benefits have pretty much torn down the constitutional provisions voted upon by individual states.  Lawsuits are and will continue to break down the definition of marriage between one man and one woman where state constitutional amendments identified marriage as such, by a vote of the people.

Read more at Conservative Review.

Ted Cruz Quote of the Day

Ted CruzObamaCare isn’t working. Yet fundamentally there are politicians in this body who are not listening to the people. They are not listening to the concerns of their constituents, they are not listening to the jobs lost or the people forced into part-time work, to the people losing their health insurance, to the people who are struggling.

Senator Ted Cruz 9/24/13 during his 21 hour speech to the American people on defunding Obamacare

Rich Leftists Responsible for Ever-Widening Income Gap

I don’t know exactly when it happens, but there comes a point in the life of some people who have become successful when they forget, or perhaps they never knew, how difficult it is to scratch by.

As millions of Americans work harder and harder to do better this year than they did last year, there are billionaires out there increasing our bills, and we have very little to say about it.

image via HuffPo
image via HuffPo

If the thirteenth wealthiest man in the world gets his way, electricity will become an item of luxury.

A report here at CNS News said that Bloomberg has donated $30 million dollars to the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, which will fortify them with an army of activists who will, with the help of the EPA, shut down 50 percent of the remaining coal plants in the nation.

If you don’t think this is serious, I have a little story.

In recent years past, the Beyond Coal Campaign has shut down over 180 coal plants.  Many of them were going to be brand new coal plants with vastly extensive “scrubbing” technologies put in place to make stack pollution a thing of the past.  All of the technologies were discovered and put in place in order to stop pollution.  At massive cost to the companies who supply our electricity, these technologies also extended to every inch of the production of electricity, in response to constant pressure from environmental groups.

One of these coal plants was going to be built in my home town.  What killed it was a concerted effort by the EPA, who created impossible standards put in place explicitly to stop coal plants, the Obama administration’s policy on coal and representatives of four or five out-of-town groups, including the Sierra Club.

Now, since the EPA’s rules on emissions came out while my town’s coal plant was in its permit process, the EPA has made it much easier for the Sierra Club to kill any new plant or shutter an older one.

I can tell you exactly what that $30 million Bloomberg is giving the Sierra Club will finance, since I saw it in action.

Every town council where a coal plant is slated to be built will be visited regularly and relentlessly by representatives of the Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council and other groups formed from those larger groups.  People move in to the surrounding area, form a group, announce their “Concerned” group in the paper and then work night and day to stop the coal plant from moving forward.  They even try to dress and act like locals.  Somebody has to pay their way, it looks like Bloomberg will foot the costs of these fraudulent actors.

Then, when it comes time for local input, and the people of the town welcome the coal plant and are even impressed by its environmental standards, with even the state Department of Environmental Quality approving of and lauding the efforts by the company, the representatives of the Sierra Club and the other fraudulent actors jump into action. They hog microphone time at town hall meetings, produce constant letters to the editor in local papers, spread lies and fear about what the coal plant will do, drawing attention to every human malady to the existence of coal, and stall the process with reams of objections during public comment period, which, by law, must be reviewed by the state before issuing permits.

Your town, like mine, could be 93 percent in favor of building a coal plant, but it won’t matter.

Since 39 percent of our nation’s electricity is produced by the burning of coal, shutting down 50 percent of all coal plants will absolutely strike all of us.  About 27 percent of our energy comes from natural gas.  But natural gas is getting attacked now because of fracking, and though Bloomberg seems happy with natural gas as a source of energy, some other billionaire with no clue how his action impoverishes working people and lowers their standard of living will fund its demise and increase poverty.

The leftist rich use their money to make those who invest in their pet environmental causes more wealthy and turn a blind eye to those who struggle to make ends meet.  They make the rich richer and the poor poorer. This example is illustrative of why there is such an income gap under this leftist regime.

This article first appeared at CNS News

Stop Allowing the Representatives of Government to Insult You

I’m going to attend my State Representative’s presentation tomorrow about Proposal 1, and I’m told he’s not taking sides, as he should not, considering the vote is up to the people as it changes the constitution.

However, I just think that it’s an insult to the taxpayer to say we need to fix the roads, and how to do that, is to increase taxes because they were derelict in management.

Now, I know that when a local township needs a road repaired they raise a millage, and it would be nice if the state spelled out what they need, offered only a temporary millage-like tax, and went back to business as usual.  But they haven’t ever done that, and now they are insulting us by changing how they tax, which unearths the ungodly mess of what our money has been used for. They told us our taxes went to roads and it was a lie, and so now when someone has high costs to their vehicle because of a pothole, if we don’t agree with their ideas, we are treated like heartless aholes.

Our representatives are becoming representatives of government, rather than of the people.  It has to stop, and only the people can set things straight.