“…In England, on the contrary, the greatest political object may be attained, by laws, apparently of little importance, or amounting only to a slight domestic regulation: the game-laws, as was before observed, have been converted into the means of disarming the body of the people: the statute de donis conditionalibus has been the rock, on which the existence and influence of a most powerful aristocracy, has been founded, and erected: the acts directing the mode of petitioning parliament, &c. and those for prohibiting riots: and for suppressing assemblies of free-masons, &c. are so many ways for preventing public meetings of the people to deliberate upon their public, or national concerns. The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion.”–St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings [1803].

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government….”

“….This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty….The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

“…In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty…”–St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries,(1803). (Mr. Tucker was a Lawyer and Professor of law at the College of William and Mary. He was appointed one of the committee to revise the laws of Virginia, and he served with James Madison and Edmund Randolph as Virginia commissioners to the Annapolis Convention. In 1803 Tucker became a judge of the highest court in Virginia. In 1813 he was appointed by President James Madison to be the United States district judge for Virginia. Tucker also, as District Court judge, sat with Chief Justice John Marshall on the U.S. Circuit Court in Richmond.).  

Mr. Tucker was AT the debates concerning the Bill of Rights. To Wit:

“Mr. Tucker hoped the words would not struck out, for he considered them of importance; besides, they were recommended by the States of Virginia and North Carolina, he noticed that the most material part by those States was omitted, which was, a declaration that the people should have a right instruct their representatives. He would move to have those words inserted as soon as the motion for striking out was decided.”–[U.S. House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, August 15, 1789. [THE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES; WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND ALL THE LAWS OF A PUBLIC NATURE; WITH A COPIOUS INDEX. VOLUME I. COMPRISING (WITH VOLUME II) THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 3, 1789, TO MARCH 3, 1791, INCLUSIVE. COMPILED FROM AUTHENTIC MATERIALS, BY JOSEPH GALES, Senior. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON. 1834. Pg. 760].

In fact, the United States Supreme Court used to quote Mr. Tucker’s writings in their early cases. As well as being quoted by one of the more famous Justices of the court; Mr. Justice Joseph Story. Which was in his own authoritative work; Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Why does the court arbitrarily dismiss Mr. Tucker’s obviously historically and legally sound opinions? Why has the court upheld the tyrannical usurpations of the federal government? The very government that was EXPRESSLY DENIED the authority to ‘regulate‘ arms in the hands of We The People? What did Mr. Tucker mean by the following?

“the purity of the judiciary is the only security for the rights of the citizen“

Wouldn’t that suggest that perhaps the court isn’t so “pure“? More like, it suggests that the court has VIOLATED the trust We The People have confided in it. And has combined with the legislative and executive branches in the ongoing conspiracy. ALL of the following supposed ‘laws‘ are clearly unconstitutional and therefore NULL and VOID:

1934 National Firearms Act

1938 Federal Firearms Act

1968 Gun Control Act

1972 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created

1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act

1990 Crime Control Act

1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Or, is the United States Supreme Court going to continue to miserably fail in its Constitutionally charged duty, and uphold tyrannical usurpations? WHY would the court rule the following in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875):

“The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the “powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,” “not surrendered or restrained” by the Constitution of the United States.”

And then turn around and allow all of the aforementioned unconstitutional ‘laws‘ to remain in force? Are their memories failing? Or, do they just arbitrarily change the rules as they go along? If so, then We The People’s Constitution is MEANINGLESS. And we are being arbitrarily ruled by tyrannical usurpers combined in a very long running conspiracy. This needs to STOP IMMEDIATELY.

The post Why does the United States Supreme Court dismiss THIS authorative commentary? appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Gates, MySanAntonio said, was being held in the Harris County Jail on a $10,000 bond and has been charged with making a terroristic threat.

According to the Houston Chronicle, an intern at the senator’s Austin office said a man identifying himself as Abolfazi Akbori called earlier this month saying Cruz “owed him money or a bomb would explode.” The report said the same man called after the office had closed, leaving a threatening message on the office’s voicemail system.

Another message left at Cruz’s San Antonio office said the caller “would kidnap, murder, and burn Ted Cruz and his father,” according to the arrest warrant.

“Ted has a choice. Give me three million dollars or lose the sun,” the message reportedly said.

The caller said that “due to government misconduct the sun would blow up and said he might be able to prevent the sun from blowing up if he receives three million dollars,” the warrant alleges.

Staffers were given a photograph of Gates in the event he attempted to retaliate, The Blaze reported.

According to authorities, Gates admitted making the calls from his apartment, and said he had previously been hospitalized at the Harris County Mental Health Center.

Gates reportedly has a history of such behavior, and has a prior felony conviction for attempted retaliation after he threatened the life of a Houston police officer and his child after the officer arrested him for drunk driving. Gates was also convicted of the drunk driving charge.

Related:

• Capitol police, FBI investigating reported threats against Rep. Todd Akin
• Tulsa man found bound, decapitated; Police suspect suicide
• Ted Cruz: Will Obama do background checks before giving arms to Syrian rebels?
• Liberalism: An ideology of rage and hate
• Do liberals really want a second civil war in America?
• GOP official targeted with threat
• Man sentenced for threatening member of Congress, claims he watched too much MSNBC
• Liberals on Twitter wish death on Republicans, GOP voters and the Tea Party
• Idaho Democrat with history of mental illness arrested for aggravated assault

——————————————————————————————————

If you like this article, you can follow Joe on Twitter @jnewby1956, or visit and join his Facebook page.

The post Houston man accused of threatening to kidnap, murder and burn Sen. Ted Cruz and father appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

An honest pastor, having the Bible for his text-book, and preaching from that text-book statedly year after year to the people of his charge, finds it quite impossible to avoid all political topics and questions. His duty requires him to “declare the whole counsel of God;” and it so happens, or rather it 60 is, that “the whole counsel of God,” as given in the Scriptures, includes instruction concerning the rights and duties of men as members of society and as related to civil government. A pastor whom we happen to know, was giving to his own congregation a course of expository sermons on the Epistle to the Romans. He had no thought of preaching politics,—the great theme of that epistle being the doctrine of justification by faith, with the points which that doctrine involves. Indeed, he had rather comforted himself with the thought that, while working in that rich mine of evangelical truth, he was in no danger of striking upon any topic having even the remotest relation to the delicate and perplexing subject of politics. But in the progress of his lucubrations and homilies, he came to the thirteenth chapter of that most evangelical and orthodox epistle; and behold, in the first seven verses, he had a political text which would not yield any other than a political subject, and therefore, in spite of his good intentions against meddling with politics, his expository sermon became a political sermon. Such is the history of the following exposition, which we give to the public, not only as illustrating that particular portion of Holy Writ, but also as showing the impossibility of avoiding political discussions in the pulpit, except by the sacrifice of the preacher’s official integrity and personal self-respect .

This passage is in some respects the more remarkable for the connection in which we find it. A series of brief, unstudied, and fervent exhortations to various social duties is interrupted by a piece of profound philosophy on the nature of civil society and the foundation and functions of civil government. Other duties are sufficiently enforced by a word of exhortation, or by an added word of quotation from the Old Testament Scriptures. But when the duty of subjection to existing authority in the State is touched, there seems to be, in the Apostle’s thought, a necessity of making that duty more intelligible by exhibiting the foundation on which it rests. It seems as if he were unwilling to have his readers act, in such a matter, blindly, or with a merely implicit trust in his superior wisdom.

He would have them understand the ground or reason of the duty. He would have them accept and obey that precept, not slavishly, but freely.

I have called this passage “a piece of profound philosophy.” Yet let me not dishonor the word of God by seeming to place it on a level with human speculation. The sagacity with which the Apostle, in these few brief sentences, exhibits and illustrates, so effectively, a subject on which philosophers have so often and so greatly stumbled, is a sagacity enlightened and guided by the Holy Spirit. His philosophy is good common sense; and as such it commends itself to every unprejudiced and attentive mind. It is profound, because it gives the religious view of a subject which atheism and irreligion cannot understand.

The precept at the beginning of this passage follows very naturally after what the Apostle has just been saying. He has been exhorting his readers to retaliate none of the wrongs inflicted on them; to avoid all unnecessary reproach by taking care that their conduct shall be such as will commend itself to the moral sense of all men; and to live peaceably with all men, so far as they can without sinful compliances and compromises. He has been warning them not to take the work of punishment into their own hands when they are wronged; and reminding them of God’s justice, he has exhorted them to overcome evil with well-doing. In this connection, another thought is necessary to the complete explanation of what has been said. He who undertakes to right his own wrongs by inflicting punishment on those who injure him, is himself an offender against established government; and this thought brings into view the established government at Home. . That was a pagan government. Nero was emperor. Many of the believers at Rome were Jews. All of them acknowledged Christ as their king, the king of kings and lord of lords. They were citizens in the new kingdom of God on earth, and their names were enrolled in Heaven. Their ideas of the kingdom of God which Christ had set up in the world, could not but be modified to some extent by the traditionary conceptions which the Jews had derived from the Old Testament. Must they whom God had chosen—they, whom Christ had redeemed to himself, a peculiar people of his own—they, whose rule of life was the high and holy law of God—be subject to a pagan government? Yes, says the Apostle, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.” This is one way in which you are to overcome evil with well-doing. “Let every man be submissive to the authorities above him. For there is no authority but from God; and the authorities which now are, have been set in their place by God, therefore he who sets himself against the authority resists the arrangement of God, and they who resist, will bring condemnation on themselves. For magistrates are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Wilt thou be fearless of their authority? Do what is good, and thou shalt have its commendation. For the magistrate is God’s minister (or servant) to thee for good. But if thou doest evil, be afraid; for not without reason does he bear the sword, for he is God’s servant, a vindicator (a dispenser of justice) to execute the penalty upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore you must needs submit, not only because of the penalty, but for conscience’ sake. For it is even on this account that ye pay tribute; for they are God’s officers, and his service is the end for which they are employed. Pay, therefore, to all what is due to them, tribute, or the direct tax on persons, to those who are authorized to receive it, excise or the taxes on goods, to the lawful collectors, respect or deference to those who represent the majesty of justice, honor to all who are to be honored.”

These few sentences, written to illustrate the duty of subjects at Rome, in the reign of the fifth Caesar, are equally applicable to the duty of all who live under any form of government in any age. The universal Christian doctrine of allegiance to civil government, is summed up in this passage. And yet the doctrine, as here summed up, is presented not in the guarded accuracy of a scientific statement, but only in such hints and outlines as are sufficient for a candid and conscientious mind. Here, as elsewhere in the Scriptures, if is easy for the heedless to misunderstand, or for the perverse to misrepresent the word of God. The exposition of this passage is the more important because of the misrepresentation to which it has been, and is, so often subjected. On the one hand, it is cited by devout believers in despotism, who make it the divine warrant for “the right of kings to govern wrong,” and for the right of the strong to oppress the weak. On the other hand, it is adduced by the adversaries or contemners of the Bible, to prove that the Christian religion teaches the slavish and abhorred doctrine of absolute obedience to power.

In the light of the text, then, and of that common sense to which the text appeals, we may inquire what is the duty which the subject or individual citizen owes to government in the civil state—what are the grounds or reasons of that duty—and what limitations of it are taken for granted in the text, or implied in the nature of the case. The answer to these inquiries will be a sufficient exposition of the text.

I. What is the duty here discussed? How is it defined or described?

1. It is a duty binding equally on all. “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers.” In the Roman empire of that day, the government was a simple despotism. From the emperor down to the meanest functionary, there was a gradation of authority. The emperor alone had no higher power above him, save only the majesty of God. Under that system, the spirit of the Christian faith would have every individual hold himself in due subjection to such authorities as were above him. Under such a civil constitution as ours, by which the various authorities are, to a great extent, coordinate and mutually accountable, and by which the Chief Magistrate of a State or of the Union is as really a subject as the humblest individual in the community, the rule certainly loses none of its importance.

2. The duty is represented as a religious duty. “Ye must needs be subject not only for wrath, but for conscience’ sake.” That sort of subjection to government which aims only to avoid the penalty of the law, is not enough. A serious and conscientious allegiance belongs to the character of a true Christian.

3. The duty includes not only a quiet subjection to government, and the payment of all legal exactions, but also a just reverence toward those who are invested with authority. “Render, therefore, to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” There are men, who would resent any imputation on their integrity or honor, yet deem it right to evade, if they can, their portion of those taxes for the purposes of government which are designed to come equally upon all. Such evasions, from the greatest to the least, violate the Christian rule of allegiance to government. The principle which they involve, strikes at all law, and would subvert all government. But the spirit of the Apostle’s teachings in this matter, goes farther still. There is a certain reverence due to those who, in their various stations, stand before the people as representing the majesty of law and government. Honor and veneration may be due to the individual as a man, on account of his tried virtue, his distinguished talents, or his eminent services; but the reverence here spoken of, is due to the magistrate without consideration of what the man is, in his private character; and if that magistrate is Nero, or George the Fourth, he is nevertheless to be respected as a magistrate till the government passes from his hands.

4. The duty must be rendered to “the powers that be;” in other words, to the government actually established and performing the functions of government. Christianity does not prescribe any form of civil government as necessary to allegiance on my part. It does not send me back to the records to learn whether the government under which I am living was set up by fraud and violence, or was established with the intelligent and free consent of the people. Its principle is that which has now passed into the law of nations—the principle which recognizes always the government de facto. If I find a government actually performing the functions of a government, my obligation to be subject for conscience’ sake is complete. Do you doubt this? What was the government which Paul had in his thoughts when he said, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers?” The world never saw a despotism more complete. Every man held his privileges, his property, his life, at the pleasure of the Emperor. The origin of that government was not the intelligent and free determination of the people; it was usurpation built upon violence and cemented by fraud, less than a century had gone by since the establishment of that despotism, when Paul said of it, “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers.”

II. We proceed to the question, What does the Apostle suggest concerning the grounds of this duty?

1. The great basis of the duty of allegiance to civil government, is the truth that government in society is an institution of God’s appointment.

It is common with modern politicians or political philosophers, Christian and atheistical, religious and irreligious—and equally common with the herd of politicians who are not philosophers—to argue as if civil government were exclusively a human institution; as if the natural state of man were not society, and subjugation to government, and dependence on his fellow-men, but wild solitude, a freedom from all restraint and rule, and a savage independence; and as if society were formed only by these supposed savages, these human brutes, coming together, and, for the sake of mutual protection and convenience, agreeing to give up their natural rights and some part of their natural freedom, and thus establishing society and a government, to which belong all those rights and powers (and no other rights or powers than those) which the wild and independent individuals have consented to part with. Such reasoners are in the habit of deducing, or attempting to deduce, all the rights and powers of government, and all the duties of citizens or subjects from this imaginary “social compact”—as if truths, the most indispensable to the welfare of mankind, were to be held only by way of inference from an absurd and acknowledged lie. Reasoning in this way—reasoning from the supposition that all the rights and powers of government, or of society, reside, primarily and naturally, in the individual, and are transferred by the individual to the government for a consideration—they have attempted to prove that no government has a right to inflict death on any offender, because, forsooth, no individual, even in a state of nature, has a right to inflict death upon himself. By the same rule, they may prove that government has no right to imprison criminals; for surely no man has a right to shut himself up in a gloomy dungeon, when he might be so much happier somewhere else. And by the same rule, they might go on to prove that government has no right to punish at all; for how can any man, in that supposed state of nature, have a right to inflict pains and torments on himself?

But the Apostle’s reasonings about the rights of government, and the duties of the governed, proceed upon a different theory. “There is no power (no authority or right to govern) but of God. The powers (authorities) that exist, are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, (authority,) resisteth the ordinance (arrangement or institution) of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation.” Then, as to the question whether the lawful magistrate has a right to punish, and to punish with the sword—”He beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath (a righteous dispenser of punishment) upon him that doeth evil.” Such is the Christian doctrine of our allegiance to the government established over us in the providence of God.

2. Another view of the ground of this duty is suggested by the Apostle. Government, as God’s institution, is designed not for the benefit of those who happen to wield it, but for the public good, and for the protection and welfare of every individual.

One great vice—perhaps the greatest—of a monarchical or aristocratic scheme of government, is, that those who hold the power are likely to regard their power not as a trust committed to them for the common benefit of all, but as their property, to be held and employed for their own pleasure and advantage and the advantage of those whom they may choose to favor. And so far as the government in a republic comes to be administered, first by one victorious part and then another, on the same principle—the principle that this power is a possession of those who happen to be invested with it, and may therefore be used for their benefit—so far the government becomes a despotism under the sacred forms of liberty.

In opposition to such abuses, the Christian theory of government teaches that the powers of government, under whatever constitution, and in whatever hands, are powers delegated from the great fountain of all power, the throne of the eternal God, not for the benefit of princes or parties, but for the benefit of the people governed, including every individual subject. And however unfortunate or unbalanced may be the constitution of that government—however unprincipled and selfish may be the men by whom that government is administered—so long as it is a government in fact, so long as it performs, even imperfectly, the necessary functions of government, so long the individual subject is to yield his obedience.

I know not how to illustrate the point now in hand, better than in the words of Richard Baxter, writing on this very question of the duty of subjects, at a time when his own native England was hideously misgoverned, and when he and those with him would “live godly in Christ Jesus,” were suffering persecution in the name of the government. “Perhaps you will think it strange,” says he, “that I say to you that I think there are not very many rulers, no, not tyrants and persecutors so bad, but that the godly that live under them do receive from their government more good than hurt; and though it must be confessed that better governors would do better, yet almost the worst are better than none. And none are more beholden to God for magistrates than the godly are, however none suffer so much by them in most places of the world. My reason is, (1,) because the multitude of the needy and the dissolute prodigals, if they were all ungoverned, would tear out the throats of the more wealthy and industrious, and turn all into a constant war. And hereby all honest industry would be overthrown, while the fruit of men’s labors were all at the mercy of every one that is stronger than the owner; and a robber can take away all in a night which you have been laboring for many years, or may set all on fire over your heads; and more persons would be killed in these wars by those that sought their goods, than tyrants and persecutors use to kill. (2.) And it is plain that in most countries, the universal enmity of corrupted nature to serious godliness would inflame the rabble, if they wore but ungoverned, to commit more murders and cruelties upon the godly than most of the persecutors in the world have committed. As many volumes as are written of tho martyrs who have suffered by persecutors, I think they saved the lives of many more than they murdered.”* See, then, what meaning there is in the Apostle’s words, when he says, with the government of Nero in his mind, “Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” For “he [the ruler] is the minister of God to thee for good.”

III. But does Christianity teach the odious doctrine of servile, unlimited, unquestioning obedience to mere power? Are there no limitations, express or implied, which circumscribe the duty of subjection to those who, in the providence of God, are permitted to wield the power of government? This is a question which must be met and answered in any just exposition and explanation of the text.

Looking, then, at the point now proposed, we perceive at once that all relative and social duties have their limitations, not easily defined, perhaps, in all cases, but yet so distinct that some general principles may be stated without difficulty. The duty of obedience to parents, natural and sacred as it is in the eyes of all men, is not without its limitations. A parent may so conduct himself in that relation as to forfeit his natural right to the obedience and respect of his children. If you ask me to say, precisely, in what circumstances this forfeiture takes place, and the children are in whole or in part exempted from obedience, I can easily state some strong case of parental unfaithfulness or incompetency, in which, so far as obedience is concerned, the bond of filial obligation is dissolved. From the statement of such cases, we may deduce some general principles by which the duty of filial obedience shall be defined. And yet a thousand cases may be proposed, in which the application of these principles is difficult, and in which the question, whether to obey or disobey, may perplex the judgment and the conscience. So of the duty now in question. This is not the only duty, the chief end of man; and therefore it is limited by coordinate or higher duties. In some clear cases, the boundaries of this duty seem palpable, while in other cases,

* Baxter, Practical Works, vi, 50, 51. Ed. 1830.

and those perhaps more numerous, the limitations are not easily traced. Some general principles, however, may he briefly stated.

1. There is a sacred right of private judgment, concerning the laws and the administration of the law, and concerning the character and conduct of the magistrate. Every old prophet, speaking as he was moved by the Holy Spirit, is an example of this. Our Lord himself, in his denunciation of Herod, and of the scribes and Pharisees who domineered in Jerusalem, is an example of this. Peter and his associates in the Apostleship, when they boldly testified against the act of government and public policy by which the Messiah had been put to death, “Him ye have taken and with wicked hands have crucified and slain,”—were examples of this. The right of private judgment in the face of clergy and synod, council and assembly— the right of private judgment on all traditions, all dogmas, all expositions of the word of God, and on the personal and official acts of all religious teachers—is essential to truth and holiness, and the life of religion in the church. Just so the right of private judgment in the face of kings and governors, judges and parliaments—the right of private judgment on laws, treaties, constitutions, judicial decisions, and the persons and actions of all invested with authority—is essential to justice, to freedom, to stability and progress in the State.

2. It is right not to obey when obedience is necessarily and directly a violation of God’s law. The government may command me, as the government of Pagan Rome commanded the primitive Christians, to perform acts of idolatry. It may command me, as the government of Egypt commanded the enslaved Hebrews, to destroy the lives of my own children. It may command me, as the government of the High Priest and Council in Jerusalem commanded the Apostles, “not to speak at all, nor preach in the name of Jesus.” In all such cases, I may turn upon the authority which presumes to command me, and say, ” We ought to obey God rather than men.”

In the application of this principle, it is not enough that the law or command is itself contrary to the will of God, and implies guilt in those from whose power it proceeds ;—that which I am commanded to do, must be that which cannot be done without sin on my part. I may suffer wrong at the hands of the government, but I must not do wrong though all the potentates of earth require it of me. For example, in this country we have no doubt that the British constitution, with its subjection of the Church to the State, with its mischievous hereditary distinctions, with all its arrangements to effect and perpetuate an unequal distribution of wealth, is contrary to right principles of government, and therefore contrary to the will of God. But all this is far from dissolving the obligation of the subject to recognize and obey the powers that actually exist. The subject may live under that system, may be obedient to the laws, may “render to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor,” and yet not be responsible for the constitution or the government under which he lives. But if that government forbids him, as it forbade our fathers, to worship God otherwise than in conformity with the dictates of arbitrary power, it becomes not only his right, but his duty, to disobey the prohibition.

We may refer to a more palpable example. The constitution of the Roman empire, in the time of the Apostles, was one great complication of public and political injustice; yet, under that constitution, Christianity said, “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for the existing powers are established in God’s providence.” The imperial power might exact, at will, unreasonable and oppressive taxes, to be consumed in profligate waste, in idolatrous and cruel pomps, in the bloody work of crushing dependent nations who might be struggling for their lost liberty; but Christ says, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s;” and the Apostles say, “Let every soul be subject.” But when any power, imperial or local, for bids the utterance of God’s word, Christ and his Apostles guided by his Spirit, are ready to die rather than obey. Whenever the existing powers, not satisfied with doing wrong themselves, command us to do what righteousness and the God of righteousness forbid us to do, the only Christian or manly answer is, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.”

3. Laws and commandments are not binding when they proceed from men not actually invested with authority. The government which I am to obey, is none other than that of “the powers that are.” A law not proceeding from the legislative power, is no law. A judicial decree or decision, not proceeding from those actually invested with judicial authority, binds no man. The question in regard to the obligation of any pretended law is, not whether this law is just, or politic, or reasonable, but whether it proceeds from an actual law-giving power—in other words, whether it is really the law of the land. According to this principle, ‘when that which has been a government loses the power of protecting those who have been its subjects; when it is no longer able to enforce obedience to law; when it can no longer protect the community from an invading enemy or from domestic violence; when the power by which the ends of government have been secured, has actually and manifestly passed into other hands; then the government which was, has ceased to be, and with it have ceased the obligations by which the subjects were held to obedience.

4. There may be a partial or entire disorganization of society, when the question arises, Where are the powers that exist? and no conclusive answer can immediately be given. When a conquering power sweeps away old laws and magistracies, and by a victorious violence establishes new, there may be an interval, more or less extended, when the one power is superseding the other, and the obligation of subjection to either power is doubtful. So when a revolution takes place by internal violence, there may arise a similar perplexity. In a government consisting (as governments in which there is any security for freedom must consist) of various departments, one department may come into conflict with another, each making an appeal to arms, and the subject may be at a loss to decide where his obedience is due, for the reason that there is no government sufficiently established to come within the principle laid down in the text.

In all such cases—when a violent revolution is in progress— when government is disorganized—when society is taking a new form, and coming under new institutions—the rule which requires subjection to the powers that are, has no application. To which of the conflicting powers the individual shall subject himself in such a case, or whether he shall stand in some neutral position and wait for the decision of the conflict, must be determined by other considerations. The citizen, in such a case, must ask himself how he, without violating other and higher duties, can most effectually promote the common welfare, the end for which government is divinely instituted. And here we are beginning to touch upon certain principles of duty to the State, which are higher and more comprehensive than the principle of subjection to our existing government Let me therefore say,—

5. It is right to resist and overthrow an existing government, when that government becomes subversive of the ends for which government exists, and the opportunity and means are at hand, which give a reasonable ground of confidence that a better government may be established. The right of revolution, and of insurrection in order to revolution, in extreme cases, is one which it was not for the New Testament to reveal, and on which the writers of the New Testament had no occasion to insist. The Christians of that age were too few, numerically—too inconsiderable in respect to influence—too much the objects of general suspicion—too much exposed to the gusty violence of popular hatred—to have anything to do with such a work as that of political revolution in any circumstances. Therefore, though Home and all the provinces groaned under the profligate tyranny of the then reigning emperor, Paul had no occasion to inform the Christians at Rome respecting the means by which that despotism might be subverted, and a just government established in its place. He needed only to enjoin upon them the duty of obedience to authorities actually existing. The right of those to whom God has given the power and capacity to reform an utterly base and pernicious government, even by the sword, when no other method can be used effectually, is a right, the sense of which is too deeply seated in the human soul to be suppressed.

Not many years after the date of the text, when the profligate misgovernment of Nero had reached its utmost height—when many of the individuals to whom Paul’s epistle was directed, had been sacrificed to the capricious malice of the emperor, by methods of the most horrible cruelty; dressed in the skins of beasts and torn to pieces by dogs, or encased in pitch, and burned alive, to illuminate the public gardens at night—when Paul himself had shed his blood on the sands of the Campagna, under the sentence of Nero—when all men, trembling with fear, wondered if Heaven had no justice to inflict on such a criminal—an order went forth from Nero, secretly, for the assassination of Galba, who at that time held a military command in Spain. The intended victim was a venerable man, illustrious by birth, by his long and blameless career of public service, and by the honors which he had won from successive emperors, He knew that the tyrant, whose malice, insane as it was, dared not attempt to put him to death under any pretense of justice, had issued the order for his murder. He knew that the Senate, and all the intelligence and virtue and industry of the metropolis and of the empire, were ready to take sides with him. He felt that the hour had come, and that fate had marked him as the man for the hour. He felt that the government, which was thus playing the assassin and seeking his life, had ceased to answer the ends of government; he saw that there was no possibility of any peaceful remedy, or of any remedy at all by any process of law; he believed that in his own resources, and in the sympathies and groans and indignation of the universal Roman empire, he had the power to introduce a new order of things; and so, yielding to the importunity of those who saw in him the hope of a better day, he raised the standard of revolution, and marched upon Rome with his legions. In the statement of this illustration from history, there is an appeal to the moral sense—an appeal to which no human soul can give but one response. And that response involves the whole theory of the extreme right of resistance to an existing power; or, in other words, the right of insurrection and revolution, as a last resort, when there remains no other. Of that right, Paul had no occasion to speak in the text. Any allusion to it would have been impertinent to his object and to the circumstances of those whom he was addressing. His silence, therefore, gives no testimony against the existence of such a right; and implies no prohibition of the exercise of that right, in God’s name, whenever the emergency arises in which its exercise is called for. The right is one which needs no formal revelation. God himself reveals it, written ineffaceably in the instincts and impulses of the human soul. The instance which I have just given from history, illustrates the whole subject. No sane man can deny that Galba was right. Why was he right? First, because the government which he undertook to resist in arms, had ceased to answer the ends of government; and instead of affording protection against wrong, had virtually made war upon the people. Secondly, because there was no prospect, and no visible possibility of any remedy in the peaceful course of’law. And thirdly, because he had the power to put down the stupendous wrong, and to establish government and justice. Had either of these three conditions been wanting in that instance, the verdict which the moral sense of every human soul now pronounces so distinctly, would have been reversed.

In bringing this exposition to a close, let me ask you to remember,

I. The sacredness of civil and political duties. The duties of a magistrate, acting as God’s servant in the establishment and support of peace and order in the commonwealth, and of all the interests of society, and especially acting as God’s servant in the awful function of dispensing justice, are sacred duties—duties not to men only, but to God, the judge of all— duties to be performed in holy sympathy with God’s beneficence and justice. The duties which the individual member of the State owes, as a subject, to the law, to the magistrate, and to society, are in like manner holy, among the highest and holiest of human responsibilities.

The duties of a citizen in a free commonwealth, his political duties, his duties as partaking in the acknowledged and established sovereignty of the people, his duties as having a voice in the election of magistrates, and in the determination of all questions of public policy, are in like manner sacred, and are to be performed not blindly, nor passionately, nor carelessly, but with an awed and trembling sense of the grandeur of the trust, and with prayer to God for his guidance and his blessing.

II. Let me ask you also to remember the duty of the people in a free commonwealth, to place over themselves, in all the posts of magistracy, men whom they can honor. Oh, what a crime is that against God’s institution of government, then a free people, misled by faction, and yielding their judgment to the arts of demagogues, exalt to the high place s of magistracy and of public trust, men whom they cannot honor if they would! How great the crime against society and against God when men who ought to be despised, and who cannot but be despised for their ignorance, their incompetence, their passions, or their vices, are invested—not by the accident of birth, but by the heedlessness of a free people—with the high and awful trust of government!

[THE NEW ENGLANDER. No. LVII. FEBRUARY, 1857.]

And the God-given Right of Resistance/Revolution is by no means just mere conjecture. To Wit:

   “Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness [which] they have prescribed; To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and [that] they may rob the fatherless! And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation [which] shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory? Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand [is] stretched out still.”–Isaiah 10:1-4

“Deck thyself now [with] majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty. Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one [that is] proud, and abase him. Look on every one [that is] proud, [and] bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place. Hide them in the dust together; [and] bind their faces in secret. Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.”–Job 40:10-14

“For the LORD taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation. Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds. [Let] the high [praises] of God [be] in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; To execute vengeance upon the heathen, [and] punishments upon the people; To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.”–Psalms 149:4-9

The post “is a right, the sense of which is too deeply seated in the human soul to be suppressed” appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Despite calls from GOP Senators in the Gang of Eight, who has been decrying the rapture will befall us if conservatives oppose immigration reform, the reality is that Hispanics did not play the decisive roll in reelecting Barack Obama that we have been led to believe. If the GOP supports immigration reform with the intended goal to increases their share of the Hispanic vote, then they will lose.

The Census numbers are in and it turns out that the exit polls, as usual, were wrong in their initial assessment of the composition of the 2012 electorate. While Hispanics did increase their raw vote numbers from 9.7 million in 2008 to 11.1 million in 2012, which is a net increase of 1.4 million voters, the voter turnout rate among Hispanic registered voters actually decreased from 49.9% in 2012 to 48.0% in 2008.

If anything can be ascertained from the data in Fig. 1, it is that the short-term trend supports the observation that there is a decrease in the Hispanic share of the overall electorate. For now, at least, this is due to the amount of young voters who make up the increased number of new eligible Hispanic voters, and young voter turnout is relatively low compared to older voters.

So how did this monumental failure for a president get reelected if there was no massive increase in the Hispanic electorate, as the election night pundits and the Lindsey Grahams have led us to believe? The answer is black voters, specifically older black voters, and even more specifically older black women.

Compared to the 2008 election, roughly 1.7 million additional black voters went to the polls in 2012, as did about 550,000 additional Asians, who used to vote Republican. The number of non-Hispanic white voters decreased by about 2 million between 2008 and 2012. Since 1996, this is the one and only example of a race group showing a decrease in net voting from one presidential election to the next.

In addition, in 2012 blacks voted at a higher rate – 66.2% – than non-Hispanic whites, who voted at a historically low 64.1%. This is the first time since the Census Bureau started publishing voting rates by the eligible citizenship population in 1996 that black voters have outvoted Whites.

Still, both blacks and whites had voting rates higher than Hispanics and Asians, which voted at a rate of about 48% each in 2012. However, voting rates for blacks were higher in 2012 than in any recent Presidential election, the result of a consistent increase in black voting rates since 1996. Voting rates also increased among Hispanics and Asians across some of the elections addressed in this analysis, however, these increases were not nearly as consistent as for blacks.

Non-Hispanic white voting rates dropped in both 2008 and 2012, after reaching a high of 67.2 percent in 2004, when white voters came out en masse for President George W. Bush. If the reader recalls, the day after his reelection we heard much the same rhetoric from the Democrats that they were demographically doomed.

Thinking about voter turnout in the context of yesterday’s article - on how Obama used behavioral psychology to exploit our human nature – the Obama campaign strategy clearly was to depress the white voter turnout, while increasing the group of voters especially susceptible to envy from economic disparity, i.e. fairness and the divisive politics of race.

If the GOP wants to do better, then they need to convince minorities – both blacks and Hispanics – that they can do better than an adherence to big government. Simply supported immigration reform because they believe it to be politically expedient is a suicide mission.  Although the hype over the 2012 Hispanic electorate share has now proven false, the trend is still clear nonetheless. By approximately 2040, whites will be a minority, as was the news last week that unfortunately was completely lost in the media rancor over former Governor Jeb Bush’s comments on Hispanic fertility rates.

Where does the GOP go now in light of all of this new data? Where common sense and courage takes us. Senator Rand Paul R-KY, Governor Bobby Jindal and his fellow-Louisiana State Senator, Elbert Guillory have all suggested; the neighborhoods that Republicans have not yet visited, with conservative solutions that Republicans have not yet adequately articulated. If we do not have the courage to compete on the enemies turf in the name of freedom for all Americans, then we will continue to be forced to defend ours.

Another novel idea, considering how far black voter turnout has come since 1996, the GOP should be framing their opposition to the “gang of eight” Senate immigration reform bill on the basis of its impact on the black community. Partnering with the Black Leadership Alliance for the “DC March for Jobs” is a good start to be sure. However, it should be coupled with an attack on big business, whom of which is the real force behind the push for amnesty, as they are licking their jobs at the prospect of millions of new people to exploit for profit.

Governor Bobby Jindal R-LA, wrote in his recent opted for Politico that, “excessive navel gazing leads to paralysis… No more self-analysis; we’ve had our catharsis. The season for navel gazing has passed.” I could not agree more with Governor Jindal, but if all the GOP has after all of this “excessive naval gazing” is to cave in on the ultimate pander that is the Senate immigration reform bill, then we are in big trouble.

We can do better, we can be more like Elbert Guillory who is making the case for freeing all Americans from the bondage of big government, because bondage it is, and bondage – yes, slavery – we must call it.

Richard D. Baris is the author of the new book, Our Virtuous Republic: The Forgotten Clause in the American Social Contract, check it out!

The post GOP Senators in Gang of Eight Should Read the New Census Numbers appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

But to my Traditional Christian brothers and sisters I say that not height nor depth nor Principalities in the atmosphere nor demonic ideology, even when vomited from our leaders or our halls of power will keep us from forever giving ‘props’ to Christ Jesus. The enemies of Christ Jesus will not be satisfied in taking Him out of our schools, but they will try to tell us what to preach from our pulpits and what Christian ideals to instill in our children – the irony is that these enemies of Christ who rabidly cherish our First Amendment’s Privacy right, which enables many of them to engage in murder and perversions… will want to breach the Traditional Christian family unit… so that they can espouse these same perversions and forced them on us, which are anathema to Christ’s principles. You have read your Bible, brethren, and so you know that all that is happening should not come as a surprise to you – we have heard it from Jesus’ own lips, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew and repeated in the Paul’s epistles. I thank Christ Jesus that though I am well read and that He Has gifted me with a little mental faculty, yet I still believe in His Sole Divinity and beware of those who will tell you that there is more than one way to God’s Salvation – once again, you know and have read your Bible where it says that no one comes to the Father… but through Christ Jesus and ask yourselves that if there were another way to God’s Salvation, why did His Son The Christ commanded the Disciples at Pentecost to spread the Gospel to the four corners of the world or why did most of the Disciples and the Apostle Paul left the confines of Jerusalem to spread Christ’ Gospel….

I would like to sugarcoat it by saying that living the Traditional Christian life will be easy, but I would be blatantly lying to you because I am afraid that persecution is coming, as was foretold by Jesus, the Christ, in the Gospel of Matthew. Look around you and you will already see many Christians watering down the Word of the Gospel and even in forums like this… they have deemed those of us who have taken a traditional take on the Bible’s teachings as being intolerant if you believe in the uncompromising Word of God… knowing and adhering to the fact that the ‘Word’ of God changes not. And once again, if you do not read your Bible, it is rather easy to be fooled and so my constant refrain is that do not take anything that I say or anyone else’s say about the contents and meanings of the Bible – but read it for your self!

We are not Traditional Christians because we are perfect – I speak for myself … knowing the wretch that I am – but i and many recognize that if the Bible says anything about a given behavior, be it in condoning or proscribing said behavior – it is so and final! I take this stance because I recognize the sovereignty of God that He is perfect and all knowing. Does my flesh that is always warring with the Spirit of God/Jesus like Fornication or any of the presumptuous Sins… but since God says that engaging in such behavior is immoral… it is so… no matter how myself or the world sees it! Does our flesh like it when we engage in gossip, bear false witness, murder, and engage in the various other behaviors proscribed by the Bible… yes, it does, but the eschatological danger is saying to God that our respective behaviors are ok and contrary to what He has said… instead of our entreating Him for our flesh to overcome said Sinful behaviors. I end with the appropriate lyrics in honor of the Christ – be it the era of Before Christ (B.C.) or Anno Domini (A.D. – in the year of our Lord) or after forever (Eternity):

Majesty, worship His Majesty

Jesus Who died, now glorified

King of all kings….

Repeat the above chorus in sweet ad nauseum… for indeed it is joy unspeakable and full of glory.

The post The Year 2013 Is Still The Year Of The Lord Jesus…. appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Dr. Hassan Feridon Rouhani’s victory in the June 14, 2013 Iranian presidential election took many by surprise, not least of all the Iranian regime’s leadership, including the faqih, Supreme Leader Sayeed Ali Khamenei. The question that challenges political analysts is why this occurred and why Khamenei acquiesced to the will of the people. Two possible interpretations may be offered. First—although it seems unlikely—is the possibility that Khamenei actually wanted this outcome as it provides him with several advantages. Those benefits include the fact that as a fellow cleric, Rouhani is more likely to adhere to the will of the faqih, if only because of the hierarchical nature of the Shiite clergy. Coupled with this is Rouhani’s personal character which seems less combative than the other leading candidates.

After having to wrestle with Rafsanjani, Khatami, and Ahmadinejad, Khamenei may be happy to have a more pliable personality with which to work. The second point that Khamenei would see as advantageous is that by accepting Rouhani as president, the faqih regains some of the prestige that he lost in 2009 when he appeared to descend from his perch as supreme guide and sully himself in the muddy waters of partisan politics by supporting Ahmadinejad. With this election, Khamenei was able to regain that lost status. And of course, because Rouhani seems the most moderate of the available candidates, there is the possibility of using that image to Iran’s advantage. In the game of “good cop, bad cop”, Ahmadinejad had aptly fulfilled his role as “bad cop”, so now a friendly face towards the West could be used to win concessions and possibly dial back the sanctions which are beginning to have true deleterious effect upon the Iranian economy.

The second possible interpretation is that Khamenei and the hard-liners indeed were taken by surprise, the hardline camp having squandered their advantage by having three candidates (Jalili, Ghalibaf, and Rezaei) as opposed to the “moderates” single candidate in Rouhani after Mohammad Reza Aref dropped out on June 12^th in favor of Rouhani. Rouhani’s promised championing of civil rights and a less combative stance on the nuclear issue clearly found resonance with the Iranian public, tired of the hardline rhetoric  and mounting privation of the past eight years of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presidency. Ali Khamenei may have had to swallow hard at the prospect of a “moderate” president, but he is no fool, and the advantages of accepting the people’s will would be readily apparent. Besides, with so much at stake in Syria, and the apparent need to send 4,000 Pasdaran (IRGC) to Syria to reinforce Assad’s troops, the prospect of bloody riots at home in repetition of 2009 clearly was distasteful to say the least. Ali Khamenei has not stayed in power for twenty-four years without learning to be flexible when needed.

There is one additional point that needs to be mentioned, and that is that Khamenei controls foreign policy; Rouhani’s influence in that arena will be negligible. The new president will have some say in domestic policy, and if he keeps the populous calm, Khamenei will reward him for doing that. In all other areas, Iranian presidents are window dressing—it’s the faqih—the supreme leader—Ali Khamenei that calls the shots. Hopefully, the West will not be fooled by the change of presidential puppet characters on the Persian stage; the puppet-master has not changed, nor has his nefarious plans for world conquest.

Rabbi Dr. Daniel M. Zucker, author of over ninety articles on the Middle-East, is founder and Chairman of the Board of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East, a grassroots organization dedicated to teaching the public and its elected officials of the need to promote genuine democratic institutions throughout the Middle-East region as an antidote to the dangers posed by Islamic fundamentalism. He may be contacted at contact@ADME.ws.

The post Understanding Hassan Rouhani’s Election as Iran’s President appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

“Mr. Wright.–Believing, as I do, that the Constitution of the United States is not perfect, and as provision is made in the body of the instrument for amending its imperfections in the manner therein prescribed, I feel it an imperious duty to propose an amendment to it. Here let me remark, that its adoption was opposed by the patriots of America, at the time of its ratification, because of omissions important to liberty. It had not guarded against an establishment of religion; it had not secured the right of the people to keep and bear arms; it had not guarded against soldiers being quartered in our houses in time of peace, without our consent, it had not guarded against warrants being issued without oath; it had not guarded against a man’s being put to answer without previous indictment; it had not secured the criminal in the trial by jury; it had not secured the trial by jury in cases of common law, and these omissions as due guards to the liberty of the citizens stand recorded in these amendments almost coeval with the instrument. The terms Federal and anti-Federal had their origin in the zeal of the respective parties at that time; the one insisting on its adoption with all these imperfections on its head, while the other insisted on these amendments; and it has always appeared to me, that on the adoption of the amendments that those who were called anti-Federals were really the Federals, the constitution being perfected by the adoption of these amendments. The foregoing amendments test its original imperfection, and I trust will lead this House to a temperate examination of the amendment I now propose to submit.
“The amendment, sir, is to place the judiciary of the United States on the same foundation that the British judiciary are placed by their laws; by enabling the President, on the joint address of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, to remove a judge.”

[ABRIDGMENT OF THE DEBATES OF CONGRESS, FROM 1789 TO 1856. FROM GALES AND SEATON'S ANNALS OF CONGRESS; FROM THEIR REGISTER OF DEBATES; AND FROM THE OFFICIAL REPORTED DEBATES BY JOHN C. RIVES. BY THE AUTHOR OF THE THIRTY YEARS' VIEW. VOL. IV. NEW YORK: D. APPLETON & COMPANY 346 & 348 BROADWAY. 1857.  Pg. 351]

(Robert Wright, (Nov. 20, 1752 – Sept. 7, 1826), studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1773. He served in the Maryland militia during the American Revolutionary War as private, lieutenant, and captain. After the war, he served as a member of the Maryland House of Delegates from 1784 to 1786, and as a member of the Maryland State Senate in 1801. Wright was elected as a Democratic Republican to the United States Senate on November 19, 1801, for the term commencing March 4, 1801. He resigned from the Senate on Nov. 12, 1806. After HAVING been elected the 12th Governor of Maryland, serving from 1806 to 1809. After his tenure as Governor, he was elected to the Eleventh and Twelfth Congresses to fill a vacancy. He was then re-elected to the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Congresses, serving from Nov. 29, 1810, to March 3, 1817. And then elected to the Seventeenth Congress, serving from March 4, 1821 to March 3, 1823. In later life, Wright served as district judge of the lower Eastern Shore district of Maryland from 1823 until his death).

The post “the constitution being perfected by the adoption of these amendments” appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Data mining, micro targeting based on that data and an unprecedented GOTV effort, all helped the Obama campaign in their efforts to reelect President Obama. However, and what the media has not told you, is that the Obama campaign used behavioral psychology to exploit our human nature, specifically the negative aspects to our nature.

I have argued, specifically and comprehensively in “Our Virtuous Republic,” that:

As it relates to politics, specifically concerning domestic policymaking, the social science field of psychology has long been overlooked and understudied.

You might be inclined to say to yourselves: of course, that is what politics is all about. But there was so much more to the Obama campaign strategy than this superficial assessment, and the implications of such an undertaking is nothing short of an unAmerican threat to liberty.

Sounds like a strong condemnation doesn’t it? Well, in truth, it might not be strong enough and I will now explain.

There are three major schools of psychology, which when considered in relation to politics and society, help us to understand our human nature and how and why we strive for tangible and intangible needs. One-by-one I will give a brief assessment, explain why it is relevant, and in the end we will discuss what the implications of each mean to and for American citizenship.

The Freudian School of Psychoanalysis

Freudian psychologists emphasize that which is both innate and developed major internal desires, urges, and so on. Of course, for Freud, the laws of morality that hold together the very fabric of society were nothing more than cultural artifacts. Freud wrote:

In the course of his development toward culture, man acquired a dominating position over his fellow creatures in the animal kingdom. Not content with this supremacy, however, he began to place a gulf between his nature and theirs. He denied the possession of reason to them, and to himself he attributed an immortal soul, and made claims to a divine descent which permitted him to annihilate the bond of community between him and the animal kingdom.

The Behavioral School of Cognitive Psychology

Because we will discuss this school of psychology more in detail, I will only briefly bring up that while Freud offered insight to the inner-influences of human nature and behavior, behaviorists believe that our personalities are nothing more than a compilation of our reactions to external influences, or as the father of behavioral psychology John B. Watson put it:

Personality is the sum of activities that can be discovered by actual observation of behavior over a long enough time to give reliable information…In other words, personality is but the end product of our habit systems.

Much of the behaviorist school of psychology is based on laboratory experiments on animals, notably the white rat.

Here, as with psychoanalysis, the connection to the animal kingdom is strong, thus behaviorism as well discounts the study of virtue, morality, ethics and the like.

But the most disturbing aspect to the Obama campaign strategy, which was based on cognitive dissonance theory of behavioral psychology, is the fundamental restraint that progressive behaviorists place on human potential. From “OVR”:

The ultimate drawback, and our Founding Fathers would have agreed, is that Behaviorism is the antithesis to our founding principles. If humans are nothing but a passive product of our environment, then free will and self-determination is a product of our imagination. The supposition that humans are not naturally free is essential to the behaviorist theory.

This is the essence of progressive big government philosophy. We are gullible, fallible creatures only to be exploited and ruled, while self-determination and betterment are to be discouraged so that the “rich and well-born” shall have “a permanent share of government.”

The Humanistic School of Psychology

However, as a matter of truth and not for purposes of rule, other psychologists such as Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers and others, found that the latter two schools of psychology quite simply were selling humankind short. Maslow wrote:

The use of animals guarantees in advance the neglect of just those capacities which are uniquely human for example, martyrdom, self-sacrifice, shame, love, humor, art, beauty, conscience, guilt, patriotism, ideals, the production of poetry or philosophy or music or science. Animal psychology is necessary for learning about those human characteristics that man shares with primates. It is useless in the study of those characteristics which man does not share with other animals, or in which he is vastly superior, such as latent learning.

The truth, in total, is that we do experience influences observed by both Freud and Watson, internal and external forces that can be wicked in nature and exploitable by despots. However, there is a “third force” that can lead us to a higher form of human behavior.

Unfortunately, progressivism is based on an ideology that appeals to only those basic physiological and safety needs. It exploits our fears associated with the inability to meet our needs, ensure our safety, and plays on our envy and hate of those who have managed to secure them more effectively.

Progressivism exploits our fears associated with the inability to meet our needs, ensure our safety, and plays on our envy and hate of those who have managed to secure them more effectively.

The Obama campaign worked with behaviorists Robert Cialdini and Susan Fiske, along with other psychologists from business schools, behavioral economists and political scientists, to drum up “fairness” arguments designed to inspire a hatred of our fellow-citizens; an envy and fear of economic disparity and inadequacy pitting us against each other; and of course, all behind a backdrop of a damaged economy that he is largely responsible for its inability to recover.

Robert Cialdini, professor emeritus at Arizona State University and author of the social science classic, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, and the University of Chicago‘s Richard Thaler, coauthor of Nudge, worked diligently to suppress our natural tendency and notorious American characteristic to strive for betterment.

So what does any of this have to do with politics, and what are the implications of our leaders strategizing to appeal to our superficial animal, rather than our “God-like” qualities. The end goal, although it was reelection in this case, is to prohibit and discourage personal and societal betterment, because they want us to be dependent on them – not each other – to meet our “hierarchy of needs.” Again, from “OVR”:

The reason that psychology is so important for us to understand, is that our entire form of government is based upon our ability to exhibit higher forms of behavior, and therefore, legitimately govern ourselves.

Can we even be true to ourselves when we say that we are free in our pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if progressive big government utilizes their structural power to “nudge” us into the direction they want us to move in? Looking at it from a different perspective:

What is a healthy society if it is not, at its core, a collection of mentally healthy individuals?

In a follow-up article I will discuss how the different means by which we pursue of our needs impacts ourselves, our communities, our whole society and nation.

Richard D. Baris is the author of the new book, “Our Virtuous Republic” – and this article was based on Chapter 1 Section 3 entitled, “The Psychology of Virtue”

The post Obama’s Campaign Used Behavioral Psychology to Exploit Our Human Nature appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

“I can’t do that alone,” she said in the DCCC email. “I need your people-power to back me up.”

“I’m counting on you to step up and help me kick the useless Republican Majority out,” she added.

Pelosi specifically cited the background check legislation that failed earlier this year.

Obama reacted sharply to the failure of his gun control bills passing the Democratic-controlled Senate, calling advocates of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms liars.

Pelosi has a long history of making such comments, from claims that Republicans would starve millions of seniors to statements that Republicans want to literally destroy everything.

She also declared the right to keep and bear arms exists in the First Amendment rather than the Second, and announced that tax cuts are “spending.”

The House Minority Leader even bragged once that Democrats are trying to “save life on this planet as we know it today.”

Her statements once earned her a sharp rebuke from Sarah Palin, who called her a “dingbat” and a “perfect spokesman” for the “far left running the Democrat Party.”

Last June, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. called her “mind-numbingly stupid,” and suggested she “schedule an appointment” with a doctor.

Weasel Zippers had a short message for the California Democrat:  “The feeling is mutual, Nancy.”

Related:

• Nancy Pelosi: ‘Tax cuts are spending’
• Sarah Palin: Nancy Pelosi a ‘dingbat’, ‘perfect spokesperson’ for radical left
• Nancy Pelosi: ‘God bless’ the Wall Street protesters
• Nancy Pelosi: Give Obama dictatorial power to raise debt limit to infinity
• Nancy Pelosi: Democrats ‘trying to save life on this planet as we know it’
• GOP Rep. Gowdy: Nancy Pelosi ‘mind-numbingly stupid,’ recommends doctor visit
• Nancy Pelosi: Right to keep and bear arms in the First Amendment

——————————————————————————————————

If you like this article, you can follow Joe on Twitter @jnewby1956, or visit and join his Facebook page.

The post Nancy Pelosi: ‘I’m sick and tired’ of ‘useless’ Republicans blocking Obama’s ultra-liberal agenda appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

   “The longer we remained in Washington, the more we saw and heard of the recklessness and profligacy which characterize the manners both of its resident and fluctuating population. In addition to the fact of all the parties to the late duel going at large, and being unaccountable to any tribunal of law for their conduct in that transaction–of itself a sufficient proof of the laxity of morals and the weakness of magisterial power–it was matter of notoriety, that a resident of the city who kept a boarding-house, and who entertained a strong feeling of resentment towards Mr. Wise, one of the members for Virginia, went constantly armed with loaded pistols and a long bowie-knife, watching his opportunity to assassinate him. He had been foiled in the attempt on two or three occasions by finding this gentleman armed also, and generally accompanied by friends; but though the magistrates of the city were warned of this intended assassination, they were either afraid to apprehend the individual, or from some other motive declined or neglected to do so; and he accordingly walked abroad armed as usual.

“Mr. Wise himself, as well as many others of the members from the South and West, go habitually armed into the House of Representatives and Senate; concealed pistols and dirks being the usual instruments worn by them beneath their clothes. On his recent examination before a committee of the House, he was asked by the chairman of the committee whether he had arms on his person or not; and answering that he always carried them, he was to give them up while the committee was sitting, which he did; but on their rising he was presented with his arms, and he continued constantly to wear them as before.”

Hmmmm, the word HYPOCRISY comes to mind….

“A bill to prevent the carrying of concealed weapons was passed by the Legislature of Virginia during our stay here, by a majority of 85 to 17; and the same object was pressed upon the attention of the Maryland Legislature, as concealed weapons arc worn by some of the people of this as well as of the neighbouring state. The bill for the suppression of duelling in the District of Columbia received also, while we were here, the final assent of both houses of Congress and the president, so that it has become a law; and this, coupled with the gradual disuse of secret arms, will no doubt have the effect of lessening the number of sanguinary conflicts.” [Pg. 310]

[AMERICA, HISTORICAL, STATISTIC, AND DESCRIPTIVE. BY J.S. BUCKINGHAM, ESQ. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. I. NEW-YORK: PUBLISHED BY HARPER & BROTHERS, 82 CLIFF-STREET. 1841. Pg. 237]

Yeah right, THAT worked out real well, now didn’t it? (How long was D.C. the murder capital of the U.S.?)

The post “go habitually armed into the House of Representatives and Senate; concealed pistols and dirks” appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

“The truth is, that in this city, as well as at New-York and all along the sea-border, emigrants from Europe, German and Irish, are brought up to vote at the polls for election of members of Congress and municipal officers within a few days after their landing, though they themselves to be citizens, swear to a residence of the requisite number of years, get vouched for by abandoned men their own party, and not only vote without the least title to such a privilege, but often vote in several wards in succession, the very circumstance of their being entire strangers rendering it impossible for any resident to detect them. A registry law will no doubt put an end to this, and hence the anger of the party who denounce it; but as such a law cannot possibly deprive any man who has a right to vote of his power to exercise it, since the suffrage among real and bona-fide citizens is universal, it seems impossible that any truly honest politician should have any real objection to it.” [AMERICA, HISTORICAL, STATISTIC, AND DESCRIPTIVE. BY  J.S. BUCKINGHAM, ESQ. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. I. NEW-YORK: PUBLISHED BY HARPER & BROTHERS, 82 CLIFF-STREET. 1841. Pg. 309-10]

The post “it has been denounced by the Democratic party here” appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

“Jihadists fear being defiled by pork, especially during Jihad,” the company says on its website. “Jihawg ammunition is Haraam or unclean to the Jihadist. So when you hear the radical battle cry- ‘allahu akbar!’ It’s time to put some ham in MoHAMed.”

According to the site, the idea came about in 2010 as “patriots from Idaho County, Idaho sat around a campfire enjoying an adult beverage.”

“History of dealings with radical Islam from the days of Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates to actions of Gen. John J. ‘Black Jack’ Pershing in the early 1900’s in the Philippines gave clarity to a modern day market solution-Jihawg Ammo. Our preference is peace first but if a fight is to be had we are determined and resolved to win. Thus came the beginning of the truest form of defensive ammunition ever created in history,” the site adds.

According to Jihawg, the ammunition presents a natural deterrence that will prevent violence by its ownership.

The company stresses that the “nullifying principle” of its product only works in the event of an attack from an Islamist engaging in jihad. Otherwise, the company says, the ammunition works like any other, and insists it be used for defensive purposes only.

News of the ammunition helped the company’s Facebook page grow, but was not welcomed by all.

A post at the Firearm Blog said the ammunition’s only intent is offense, and warns of potential legal issues.

“If you defend yourself with a pistol, the last thing you need or want is a prosecutor holding up a pork covered bullet in court and telling the jury that the person shot was a Muslim,” the post said. “If you want to defend yourself, buy the most effective ammunition possible. Don’t buy cr*p covered in pork. As a community, we are better than this.”

The far left wing site Media Matters is also using the news to attack gun owners.

The idea of using pork to deter Islamic terror is not new, but stories of its use have been somewhat exaggerated.

Legend has it that General Pershing executed Islamic terrorists with bullets dipped in pork, but Urban Legends says the stories are false.

“I never found any indication that it was true in extensive research on his Moro experiences,” said Dr. Frank E. Vandiver, professor of history at Texas A&M University and author of “Black Jack: The Life and Times of John J. Pershing.”

A post at Snopes calls the veracity of the account “undetermined.”

Another story says Russians buried Muslim terrorists in pig skins as a deterrent.

A 2002 post at Free Republic, citing Arutz Sheva, says Russian security officials “have decided to bury the terrorists from last’s week’s hostage siege wrapped in pig’s skin.” The link to Arutz Sheva, however, does not work, and we were unable to locate verifiable media accounts indicating the Russians actually buried terrorists in pig skins.

In 2004, Aretz Sheva reported that Israeli security officials considered placing bags of lard on buses as a deterrence to suicide bombers.

“If bags of pig lard will prevent zealous Muslim terrorists from carrying out attacks, I’m all for it,” said Deputy Defense Minister MK Yaakov Edri.

Related:

• Connecticut lawmakers propose eligibility certificates for ammo purchases, more
• Bill by Florida Democrat would require anger management for ammo buyers
• The blame game…and ‘We the People’ are the losers
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein admits: Goal of gun ban is to ‘dry up’ supply of weapons (Video)

——————————————————————————————————

If you like this article, you can follow Joe on Twitter @jnewby1956, or visit and join his Facebook page.

The post Peace through pork: Idaho company sells pork-laced ammo as deterrent to Islamic terrorism appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Obviously the impending American Civil war had been coming to fruition for decades. Just as all of the tyranny and disregard for the Constitution. As well as the rights of the people, that we see currently. Do We The People really want to go down that same road? Or, do we stand up NOW, and force our servants back into their Constitutionally delegated positions? The question cannot afford to be ignored any longer. For the clangs of the chains of tyranny are almost deafening at this juncture. What is our choice to be?

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana

Would it be fair to ourselves, or to our posterity. As well as to the memory of those that had secured to us “the blessings of Liberty”. To disregard these obvious warnings we see today? And just bow our heads in submission to the evil intent on enslaving us? Instead of turning to the Great Author of those very rights, as our forebears had done. And humbly seeking His forgiveness and aid? If the former, then we are indeed unworthy of those blessings which were passed down to us. And deserve to have those chains fitted tightly around our necks…

Or, we can follow the example of our forebears:

“In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birth-right, and which we ever enjoyed until the late violation of it; for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.”–Thomas Jefferson, from the original draft of “A DECLARATION By the Representatives of the United Colonies Of NORTH-AMERICA, Setting forth the CAUSES and NECESSITY Of their taking up ARMS. July, 1775.

The ball, I believe, is presently in our court….

The post And deserve to have those chains fitted tightly around our necks… appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

“Well, he was seen as the most reform-minded of all the candidates who ran this time, that being said, they were all very conservative. In U.S. terms, it was as if all the candidates for the presidency came from the Tea Party,” she said when asked if Hassan Rowhani, the winner of the election, is “in the mold of Ahmadinejad.”

Appearing on Fox News Monday morning, Sarah Palin responded as only she can.

“Okay, Elizabeth, you just put the BS in CBS,” she said. “It’s things like that that people hear and see and realize how out of touch the lamestream, the mainstream media is. To compare, really, the Iranian revolutionaries with those who are patriots in America and just want government to live within its Constitution?”

Palmer’s comment, while outrageous, is mild compared to what others have said about the Tea Party, but reveals the hatred liberals have for fellow Americans who support the ideals of the Tea Party.

Since its inception, the Tea Party has been subjected to a relentless campaign of hate from the White House all the way down to rank-and-file liberals.

In Aug. 2011, Vice President Joe Biden said Tea Party Republicans “have acted like terrorists” during the debt ceiling debate.  He later claimed he didn’t make the comment and President Obama was confronted about it by Tea Party activist Ryan Rhodes.

Operatives of the so-called “mainstream media,” or what I like to call the “Democrat-media complex,” have played a crucial role in the ongoing assault against the Tea Party.

A July 2011 op-ed at Politico, for example, called the Tea Party “full-blown terrorists” and implied that force be used to deal with it.

In August 2011, Froma Harrop, a member of the Providence Journal’s editorial board, and then President of the National Conference of Editorial Writers, also suggested military force be used against the Tea Party.

That same month, an editorial cartoon at the Arizona Daily Star suggested Obama use Navy SEALs to assassinate Tea Party Republicans.

Elected officials — allegedly responsible leaders in Washington — have also engaged in an all-out assault against the Tea Party.

In August 2011, for example, then-Senator John Kerry, D-Mass., said the media should simply ignore the Tea Party, basically because he disagrees with it.  That same month, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., ruffled feathers when she said the Tea Party “can go straight to hell.”

More recently, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., called the Tea Party “anarchists” who want to shut down the government.

Liberal talk show hosts have also done their part, with Mike Malloy — perhaps the most unhinged individual on radio today — calling for an “angel of the Lord” to behead every single member of the Tea Party.

Even the military has done its part, with scenarios based on the false presumption of Tea Party members engaging in armed insurrection.

There are, of course, many more examples one can point to.

One result of this campaign can now be seen in the scandal involving the IRS targeting of conservative groups.  But that’s not all.

A company that produced a Tea Party coloring book received death threats.  Tea Party leaders in various states have also received death threats, while liberals on Twitter have called for Tea Party members to be murdered.

One thing has become clear.  Anyone who thinks the government should abide by the Constitution and live within its means is now a target to be marginalized, demonized and ultimately eliminated.

Palmer’s comment was simply the latest effort to make that a reality.

Related:

• Harry Reid: Tea Party non-violent anarchists, government ‘inherently good’
• Liberalism: An ideology of rage and hate
• Do liberals really want a second civil war in America?
• Mainstream media declares jihad against truth and the Tea Party

———————————————————–

If you like this article, you can follow Joe on Twitter @jnewby1956, or visit and join his Facebook page.

The post CBS reporter compares Iranian hardliners to Tea Party, reveal left’s hatred of fellow Americans appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

In the latest CNN News poll Barack Obama’s presidential approval rating dropped 8% over the past month to 45%, which the lowest rating CNN has found in more than a year and a half. Inside the numbers, however, the poll is a disaster for more than just President Obama’s approval rating, but rather for the Democratic philosophy of big government.

The CNN/ORC International survey released Monday morning comes amid the White House being bogged down in several scandal controversies over the massive U.S. government surveillance program, known as Prism; the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups who applied for tax-exempt status; the administration’s misdirection over the September 11 attack in Benghazi that left the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans dead; and the Justice Department’s secret collection of journalists’ phone records as part of a government investigation into classified leaks, including the classification of James Rosen as a “co-conspirator.”

The poll found that for the first time in Obama’s presidency, and I would argue has been the metal in his armor, half of the public says they don’t believe Barack Obama is an honest and trustworthy president. Americans are split on the controversial National Security Agency anti-terrorism program to record metadata on U.S. phone calls.

According to the poll, Americans support the NSA program that targets records of Internet usage by people in other countries, however, they do not necessarily agree with what is going on, as just over 6 in 10 Americans report that government is so large and powerful that it now threatens the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans.

In the poll that was conducted Tuesday through Thursday of last week, a slight majority – 52% – disapprove of the actions of Edward Snowden, the man who leaked sensitive information about the NSA Prism program. A similar number – 54% – agree that Edward Snowden, who has fled to Hong Kong, should be brought back to the United States and prosecuted, but 44% approve of Snowden’s actions.

The president’s approval rating stands at 45%, which is down from 53% in the last CNN/ORC survey conducted in mid-May, and 54% say they disapprove of how Obama’s handling his job, up 9% from last month. It’s the first time since November 2011, that the CNN poll found that a majority of Americans have had a negative view of the president. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland, said:

The drop in Obama’s support is fueled by a dramatic 17-point decline over the past month among people under 30, who, along with black Americans, had been the most loyal part of the Obama coalition.

The president also dropped 10% among independent voters, from 47% last month to 37% now, with Obama’s disapproval among independents jumping 12% from 49% to 61%.

What’s behind the drop? Holland believes:

It is clear that revelations about NSA surveillance programs have damaged Obama’s standing with the public, although older controversies like the IRS matter may have begun to take their toll as well.

His observation among young voters is paramount, and now 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of how Obama is handling government surveillance of U.S. citizens, which is actually higher than the 52% who disapproved of George W. Bush on the same issue in 2006, when then-Senator Barack Obama was slamming the President’s leadership on the War on Terror.

Obama’s approval rating on terrorism, although still above 50%, has dropped 13% since mid-May, and his approval rating on domestic issues such as the economy, immigration and the deficit have dropped from 2% – 4% respectively.

Americans’ views on Obama personally have finally declined, and aside from polls conducted immediately after the Denver presidential debate, Obama has never had to content with such a level of disappointment.

The number of Americans who think he is honest has dropped 9% over the past month, from 58% to 49%, while 57% of those questioned say they disagree with the president’s views on the size and power of the federal government. This is a serious problem for the entire philosophy of the Democratic party. A staggering 53% of Americans say that he cannot even manage the government effectively.

It is the fundamental philosophical debate that has the potential to hurt the president’s party as a whole, and 43% of the public report that the Obama administration has gone too far in restricting civil liberties to fight terrorism, while 38% reported the administration has been about right and 17% saying it has not gone far enough.

In a recent Rasmussen survey, only 24% of Americans trust the government to do the right thing most or all of the time, even though 51% in the CNN poll reported that the data collection was the right thing to do. While 6 in 10 Americans believe that the government has collected their personal information, 57% of Americans believe that the government will misuse the information and target political opposition groups.

What we see developing is the usual American pragmatism is now clashing with their philosophical distrust in government. This has presented an enormous opportunity for the GOP in the 2014 midterm elections, because if the president is viewed as untrustworthy in the office he holds, then the only option the American voters have is to instill a greater opposition presence in Congress to check the powers of the executive.

To be sure, this is the route and argument the GOP should be making, and not in the run up to the elections either, but right now as to solidify the narrative in the minds of Americans while their skepticism remains high. The reduction in support for President Obama is among the groups of Americans that the GOP now has an opportunity to appeal to – in particular young voters.

With all of the talk from Senator Graham R-SC, and other prominent GOP establishment members who are firmly convinced that the future electoral success of the GOP lays in the Hispanic vote, little is being recognized regarding the opportunity to handicap Democrats with young voters, who are primarily concerned with intrusions to individual liberties.

If the GOP was wise, then they would be following the lead of Senator Rand Paul R-KY, Senator Mike Lee R-UT, and other fresh face conservatives who are champions of the Bill of Rights in the libertarian wing of the GOP.

Consequentially, Gallup measured President Obama’s approval rating on Nov. 1, 2010, just before the 2010 midterm elections to be 45%.

View President Obama’s Approval Rating Average In The Past Month

Richard D. Baris is the author of the new book, “Our Virtuous Republic”

The post Presidential Approval Rating Hits New Low, Presents GOP w/ Big Opportunity appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

LESSONS FROM HISTORY.

It is of the very nature and essence of despotism to make use of the rabble, and to depress the middling class of citizens. In old Rome Marius, for the first time in the annals of that Republic, enlisted his soldiers from the sixth class or those who had nothing. Whereas, until that time, the armies of Rome were composed of those who paid taxes. The honour of bearing arms was confined to the Freemen, as they would be called in Connecticut. They alone held the political power, and the right of voting. For although the rabble or sixth class was not wholly excluded from suffrage, yet those who take the pains to read Livy or Dionysius of Halicarnassus, will perceive that the exercise of their right was very effectually guarded from abuse.

As ambition advanced, the rabble were courted. Marius admitted citizens from the cities of Italy, in familiar phrase, he naturalized every body that would come to Rome, and vote armies and provinces to him. Accordingly, the eternal City, as Roman vanity denominated it, the conqueror and sovereign of all nations, was herself subdued by a crowd of strangers. They were naturalized in troops, and rushed in to make the native Roman, strangers and servants in Rome itself! This very work is going on in America. Every ship from Ireland brings to Philadelphia more citizens than wharf rats–and a pest as hard to endure or to get rid of.

The ruin of Rome followed. Liberty fell first, for strangers came in to betray it. Then Roman glory faded, for the armies were composed of rabble who were too base to feel the inspiration of patriotism, and they had too much power in making Emperors, for discipline to have any over them. Too corrupt for freedom, a mongrel race too democratic for arms, at length they neither sustain the weight of their own glory, nor even of their chains. The Goths, and other barbarians extirpated the descendants of the Scipios as too cowardly and base even for slavery. They peopled Europe anew with swarms of hardy savages of the north, who loved liberty because it glory, and despised arts and letters because were Roman.

Much might be added to this short history, to prove that the lowest class in Rome, was always made the dupe of the arts of demagogues, in order to be their convenient instrument. But never the good of this rabble the object or the effect of the harangues and intrigues of their flatterers. It would lengthen this paragraph too much, to pursue the course of these remarks any further. Perhaps it may be attempted hereafter.

In Paris we have seen the rabble assembled, harangued, fed, paid and armed, and then suppressed by the regular troops.

In order to have the assistance of the rabble, the Roman and French demagogues gave, or pretended to give them political power–really them bread, sometimes arms, and often feasts and sports. For almost five hundred years, the Emperors distributed daily three pounds of bread each, to a lazy crew, who loitered from morning night in the circus or amphitheatre. This kept idleness in a state of dependence on the prince, but it increased the number of the idle. At the same time, it augmented the burdens that the industrious middling class of citizens had to bear. These at length became so heavy, and the military government, while it was obliged to court the base, needy and vicious multitude, was so to the holders of property, that the Empire fell into a consumption. The people diminished, lands became vacant, and the sound population perished. Its place was supplied by the barbarians, who settled by tens of thousands, and at length subverted the Empire: A fate which we doing our utmost to inflict on our country.

In like manner the French revolution leaders flattered, assembled and paid the half naked mob of Paris. The burdens on property were immense in their amount, and arbitrary in their principle. The change of the landed property of that country was greater in five years of the revolution than made of old Ly Attila, who was called the scourge of God. Nothing ever equalled it in Roman or modem history.

Why is this uniform alliance of demagogues with mobs; and why is it that usurpers are so sure to depress if not to extirpate the middling class of citizens: the class that holds, in every nation, a large part of the property? The answer is easy. The indigent rabble is every where turbulent. Having nothing to lose, a tyrant does not look to them spoil. But their numbers and restlessness of spirit make them formidable to him. He naturally therefore, snatches something from those who have property, to keep the rabble quiet, by giving small gratuities and extravagant hopes.

It is easy to see that a tyrant will squeeze middling classes excessively. Their tempts his desires and those of his soldiers, while their care of it insures their tameness. Like the sea-otters, their fat prevents their flight, and they are knocked on the head to save powder and shot. Octavius and Antony gave one third of the of Italy to their soldiers, and turned the out.

Hence it is that revolution is forever fatal to property. The very stimulous to revolution is the hope that property will shift hands.

Power, it is said, follows property: and as those who hold it will desire protection–which confusion and violence will not give and could not insure–their weight and influence will ever be anti-revolutionary. The revolutionists, therefore, will spring up among the destitute, who want spoil, and the daring ambitious, who seek dominion. The success of these latter, puts all property at their mercy, and their own security demands that it should shift hands, in order that the power it confers may be taken from enemies and placed in the hands of associates.

What has all this dry discourse to do with affairs! says Dives, the great farmer, who many thousand dollars lent on mortgage.The answer is, it has a great deal to do with them Worcester “Farmer” says, very fairly, “Liberty must be ransomed a second time from the of the opulent.” The public funds and banks openly threatened in the Jacobin Newspapers. A whisky mob would borrow very freely from vaults.

Indeed what is there beside to tempt our Patriots to so much exertion? Surely more citizens come over in every ship than we can consuls for life. They expect humbler and accessible rewards. A few great Democrats may expect office; but the only lure for a restless destitute multitude is plunder; and those who been used to it in St. Domingo and in Europe, are coining here to set up their trade.

Let the real people, the house holders and possessors of small property, rest assured, on evidence of dreadful and invariable experience, the revolutionists of this country, the avowed admirers of the French revolution, are no friends to the people: They may, indeed, form a league with the vicious and destitute of our cities, but they try to deceive and will certainly betray, oppress and enslave the middling class. Let them then mark the Jacobins as the People’s enemies, the enemies of virtue and of true Liberty.

[THE PORT FOLIO ENLARGED. BY OLIVER OLDSCHOOL, ESQ. "VARIOUS, THAT THE MIND OF DESULTORY MAN, STUDIOUS OF CHANGE, AND PLEAS'D WITH NOVELTY, MAY BE INDULGED." COWPER. VOL. II.] PHILADELPHIA, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 23d, 1802. [No. 42. Pg. 339-40]

The post “A few great Democrats may expect office…” appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

“…Still the Texians did not take up arms: they did not acquiesce, but they did not revolt. They retained their State Government in operation, and looked to the other States older and more powerful than Texas, to vindicate the general cause, and to re-establish the federal constitution of 1824. In September 1835, this was still her position. In that month a Mexican armed vessel appeared off the coast of Texas, and declared her ports blockaded. At the same time General Cos appeared in the west with an army of fifteen hundred men, with orders to arrest the State authorities, to disarm the inhabitants, leaving one gun to every five hundred souls, and to reduce the State to unconditional submission. Gonzales was the selected point for the commencement of the execution of these orders; and the first thing was the arms, those trusty rifles which the settlers had brought with them from the United States, which were their defence against savages, their resource for game, and the guard which converted their houses into castles stronger than those “which the King cannot enter.” A detachment of General Cos’s army appeared at the village of Gonzales on the 28th of September, and demanded the arms of the inhabitants; it was the same demand, and for the same purpose, which the British detachment under Major Pitcairn had made at Lexington, on the 19th of April, 1775. It was the same demand! and the same answer was given–resistance–battle–victory! for the American blood was at Gonzales as it had been at Lexington; and between using their arms and surrendering their arms, that blood can never hesitate. Then followed the rapid succession of brilliant events, which, in two months, left Texas without an armed enemy in her borders, and the strong forts of Goliad and the Alamo, with their garrisons and cannon, the almost bloodless prizes of a few hundred Texian rifles. This was the origin of the revolt; and a calumny more heartless can never be imagined than that which would convert this just and holy defence of life, liberty, and property, into an aggression for the extension of slavery.

“Just in its origin, valiant and humane in its conduct, sacred in its object, the Texian revolt has illustrated the Anglo-Saxon character, and given it new titles to the respect and admiration of the world.

“It shows that liberty, justice, valor–moral, physical, and intellectual power–discriminate that race wherever it goes.”

- Senator Thomas Benton, July 1, 1836. [REGISTER OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS, COMPRISING THE LEADING DEBATES AND INCIDENTS OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND THE LAWS, OF A PUBLIC NATURE, ENACTED DURING THE SESSION: WITH A COPIOUS INDEX TO THE WHOLE. VOLUME XII. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON. 1836. Pg. Pg. 1926-27] (Thomas Hart Benton, March 14, 1782 – April 10, 1858, nicknamed “Old Bullion”, was a U.S. Senator from Missouri. Serving in the Senate from 1821 to 1851, becoming the first member of that body to serve five terms. Benton was an architect and champion of westward expansion by the United States, later becoming known as “Manifest Destiny”. One of his more famous quotations was; “I never quarrel, sir, but I do fight, sir, and when I fight, sir, a funeral follows, sir.”).

The post “those trusty rifles which the settlers had brought with them from the United States” appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

“Surely there is enough good sense and sound logic in this House to ward off the conclusion that, because power of this local Legislature is undefined, it is, therefore, unchecked and unrestrained. Do any contend for such a proposition? If so, let us follow out its results to the most monstrous absurdities.

“There are certain clauses of the constitution of the United States which restrain Congress, as the national Legislature, from passing certain laws: As that which forbids the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the passage of a bill of attainder or ex post facto law; a law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom speech or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble and petition; or the right of the people to keep and bear arms; or the right to be secure in persons, houses, papers, and effects: As in that which says: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Will it be contended that the local Legislature of the District of Columbia has unlimited power to pass laws impairing any of these rights?”

- Henry A. Wise, Dec. 22, 1835. Representative of Virginia. [REGISTER OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS, COMPRISING THE LEADING DEBATES AND INCIDENTS OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND THE LAWS, OF A PUBLIC NATURE, ENACTED DURING THE SESSION: WITH A COPIOUS INDEX TO THE WHOLE. VOLUME XII. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON. 1836. Pg. 2027-28] (Henry Alexander Wise, Dec. 3, 1806 – Sept. 12, 1876, was a U.S. Congressman and governor of Virginia).

The post “or the right of the people to keep and bear arms” appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

To begin with, and the statement in my book that is drawing some attention, is that “the modern progressive interpretation of the commonly heard phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is the single biggest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people regarding their national identity,” as well as a distortion of the true history of religion in America.

Whether you believe in God, are a Christian, an Atheist or Agnostic, you are certainly entitled to hold those beliefs as outlined in the First Amendment. However, if it is truth that you hold paramount in your life and philosophy, then you must concede my statement is accurate, or risk walking down a path of irreversible ignorance.

The “wall of separation between church and state” that Jefferson wrote about in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association dated January 1, 1802, was referring only to a “federal wall” and was meant to calm fears that the federal government would favor one established church over another, not whether or not religion would have any place in public forums in American society:

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.

Indeed, not only were “matters of religion” left “under the direction” of “state or church authorities,” but the presence of those authorities were prerequisite requirements for any and all governments in once “Our Virtuous Republic.” In 1787, the very same year the Constitution was adopted, and by the very same Congress who would adopt it, Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance was overwhelmingly passed. Article III states:

Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

But wait, according to modern progressive justices, we cannot even have the 10 Commandments hanging in our public schools anymore for fear we might be insensitive to the tyranny of the minority, yet “Religion, morality, and knowledge” were considered one in the same task.

The whole truth of the matter regarding religion and America is that it is all a modern fabrication, a lie designed a mere one generation removed from our own – and in our hearts – Americans know it. Released just today, a survey found that a plurality of Americans – 41% – believe that the Supreme Court has been “Too Hostile Towards Religion” and inconsistent with our history, while just 15% reported they believe the rulings have been “Too Friendly.”

In an article published last week, which of course was met with vitriol filth from the left, I underscored how Americans across the political spectrum view religion to be a positive force in American society. But the American people have lost faith in the leaders of our established religious institutions, whom of which are viewed as hypocrites, and with good reason.

Religious leaders are not fighting against this trend, or for their First Amendment right to preserve and safeguard “Religion, morality, and knowledge” in our country. The political neutering of our religious leaders, which prohibits them from political activity and endorsement, is a modern construction of the 1950′s by none other than the architect of the “Great Society” himself – Lyndon B. Johnson. He was about to lose his Senate seat to a more conservative-Christian candidate – plain and simple.

In an effort that echoes the IRS targeting of the Tea Party and other conservative groups, Johnson used the federal tax code to knee-cap religious leaders who saw him as a threat to individual freedom and morality. Freedom and morality, consequentially, were viewed by our Founding Fathers as indisputably linked, as Franklin stated:

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

So what then was our Founding Fathers’ ideal vision in respect to the free exercise of religion? Again in Jefferson’s own words, because the left has targeted and distorted his words so frequently, he writes of this ideal vision:

In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four sects, but without either church or meeting-house. The court-house is the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in hymning their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others’ preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony.

Unbelievable, isn’t it? Thus far, according to modern progressive justices, not only can we not have the 10 Commandments hanging in our public schools but in any public forum of our judicial system, yet here, the “court-house is the common temple.” Now think back to your false understanding of the “wall of separation between church and state,” and indeed, it “is the single biggest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people regarding their national identity” – whether you are a believer or not.

To read and learn more about religion and America, and the psychological effects of religion on American society, check out Rich’s new book “Our Virtuous Republic: The Forgotten Clause in the American Social Contract”

The post The Progressive History of Religion in America is a Hoax appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

1. Congress cannot appropriate monies for raising supporting armies for a longer term than two years.
2. They cannot suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, except in cases of rebellion or invasion, and not even then, unless the public safety requires it.
3. They cannot pass bills of attainder.
4. Nor expost facto laws.
5. They cannot lay a capitation or direct tax except in certain proportions which the constitution provides.
6. They cannot lay duties on articles exported from any state.
7. They cannot give a preference by revenue laws to the ports of one state over those of another.
8. They cannot oblige vessels bound to or from one state to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
9. They cannot grant titles of nobility.
10. They cannot make laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
11. Nor laws abridging the freedom of speech or of press.
12. Nor abridging the right of the people peaceably assemble and petition government for a redress of grievances.
13. Nor infringing the right of the people to keep bear arms.
14. Nor in violation of any of the articles of the bill rights annexed to the constitution, in the form of amendments, and adopted by the requisite majority of states.

While the national government is thus restricted in powers of legislation, it is, on the other hand protected analogous restrictions on the legislative authority of states. By the tenth section of the first article of the constitution, various prohibitions are laid upon the individual states, some of which are absolute, and others merely interdict the exercise of certain powers without the permission of congress first had and obtained.

[THE EDINBURGH ENCYCLOPAEDIA CONDUCTED BY DAVID BREWSTER, L.L.D.F.R.S. With the assistance of GENTLEMEN EMINENT IN SCIENCE AND LITERATURE. THE FIRST AMERICAN EDITION, Corrected and improved by the addition of numerous articles relative to THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE AMERICAN CONTINENT, ITS GEOGRAPHY, BIOGRAPHY, CIVIL AND NATIONAL HISTORY, AND TO VARIOUS DISCOVERIES IN SCIENCE AND THE ARTS. IN EIGHTEEN VOLUMES. Vol. XI. Philadelphia: PUBLISHED BY JOSEPH AND EDWARD PARKER. 1832. William Brown, Printer.]

The post “Nor infringing the right of the people to keep bear arms” appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.