Category Archives: United States

Majority of Americans, esp. Democrats, want to make “hate speech” a criminal act

The United States is exceptional in the world when it comes to the protection of free speech. But that distinction is now endangered.

Peter Moore reports for YouGov, May 20, 2015, that its latest research shows that many Americans support making “hate speech” a criminal offense, by a margin of 41% for vs. 37% against.

Hate speech is vaguely defined by YouGov as public statements which would “stir up hatred against a group based on such things as their race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.”

Note that “hate speech” doesn’t mean a public statement that explicitly advocates or incites violence against a group, instead it is about “stirring up hatred,” which is vague and subjective.

What does “stir up” mean? What does “hatred” mean?

The same statement may arouse ill will in someone, but not in another. In other words, what is considered “hate speech” means many things to many people.

On this issue of supporting criminalizing hate speech, as on others, there are partisan and racial differences:

  • The majority (51%) of Democrats support criminalizing hate speech; only 26% oppose.
  • In contrast, a majority of both Republicans (47%) and Independents (41%) oppose criminalizing hate speech, with 37% of Republicans and 35% of Independents in support.
  • The majority of blacks (62%) and Hispanics (50%) support criminalizing hate speech, with only 14% of blacks and 24% of Hispanics opposed.
  • In contrast, a majority (43%) of whites oppose criminalizing hate speech, with 36% favoring criminalizing.

criminalizing hate speech

Charles C.W. Cooke of National Review points out that

It’s important to note here that “stir up hatred against” does not mean “instruct a crowd to kill” or “explicitly incite violence against.” Both of those things are already illegal under the Supreme Court’s 1969 Brandenburg standard. Rather, it is a fancy way of saying “be really mean to.”

Cooke notes that in the UK, prominent British columnist Katie Hopkins is being investigated by the police and may be prosecuted under the Public Order Act, for referring to African migrants crossing the Mediterranean as “cockroaches”. But Hopkins did not threaten African migrants, nor did she ask her readers to meet her the next day and embark upon a violent crusade. She merely called African migrants by an ugly word.

Should Americans wish to become more like the British — as YouGov’s research shows a majority of Democrats, blacks and Hispanics want to — they would have to do no less than to repeal the First Amendment.

H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV

~Éowyn

Much bias in this headline? Bill Clinton company shows “complexity” of family finances

Clinton Cash

Yahoo: The newly released financial files on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s growing fortune omit a company with no apparent employees or assets that the former president has legally used to provide consulting and other services, but which demonstrates the complexity of the family’s finances.

Because the company, WJC, LLC, has no financial assets, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was not obligated to report its existence in her recent financial disclosure report, officials with Bill Clinton’s private office and the Clinton campaign said. They were responding to questions by The Associated Press, which reviewed corporate documents.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide private details of the former president’s finances on the record, said the entity was a “pass-through” company designed to channel payments to the former president.

Under federal ethics disclosure rules, declared candidates do not have to report assets worth less than $1,000. But the company’s existence demonstrates the complexity of tracking the Clintons’ finances as Hillary Clinton ramps up her presidential bid.

While Bill Clinton’s lucrative speeches have provided the bulk of the couple’s income, earning as much as $50 million during his wife’s four-year term as secretary of state in the Obama administration, the former president has also sought to branch out into other business activities in recent years. Little is known about the exact nature and financial worth of Bill Clinton’s non-speech business interests.

The identities of several U.S and foreign-based companies and foundations that Bill Clinton worked for have been disclosed in Hillary Clinton’s recent financial report as well as in earlier reports during her stint as secretary of state.

Under federal disclosure rules for spouses’ earned income, Hillary Clinton was only obligated to identify the source of her spouse’s income and confirm that he received more than $1,000. As a result, the precise amounts of Bill Clinton’s earned income from consulting have not been disclosed, and it’s not known how much was routed through WJC, LLC.

WJC, LLC was set up in Delaware in 2008 and again in 2013 and in New York in 2009, according to documents obtained by The AP. The company did not appear among holdings in the Clintons’ financial disclosure released last week or in previous Hillary Clinton disclosure reports between 2008 and 2013, when she resigned as secretary of state. Bill Clinton signed a document as its “authorizing person” in a corporate filing in Delaware in 2013.

A limited liability company is a commonly used business structure that provides tax advantages and limited legal protection for the assets of company owners and partners.

The purpose of Bill Clinton’s U.S.-based company was not disclosed in any of the corporate filings in Delaware and New York, but State Department files recently reviewed by the AP show that WJC, LLC surfaced in emails from Bill Clinton’s aides to the department’s ethics officials.

In February 2009, Clinton’s counselor, Douglas Band, asked State Department ethics officials to clear Bill Clinton’s consulting work for three companies owned by influential Democratic party donors. Memos sent by Band proposed that Bill Clinton would provide “consulting services regarding geopolitical, economic and social trends affecting the entity and philanthropic opportunities” through the WJC, LLC entity.

State Department officials approved Bill Clinton’s consulting work for longtime friend Steve Bing’s Shangri-La Industries and another with Wasserman Investments, GP, a firm run by entertainment executive and Democratic party donor Casey Wasserman. The ethics officials turned down Bill Clinton’s proposed work with a firm run by entertainment magnate and Democratic donor Haim Saban because of Saban’s active role in Mideast political affairs.

WJC, LLC was also cited by Band in a June 2011 memo sent to State Department ethics officials asking for clearance to allow Bill Clinton to advise Band’s international consulting company, Teneo Strategy LLC. Band’s request said Teneo would use “consulting services provided by President Clinton through WJC, LLC.” State Department officials approved the three-year contract between the two companies. None of the proposals detailed how much Bill Clinton would be paid.

While Hillary Clinton’s 2011 federal disclosure report did not mention WJC, LLC, it reported that Bill Clinton received “non-employee compensation over $1,000 from Teneo,” but did not disclose a more precise amount. Federal disclosure rules require the spouses of filers to disclose the identity of any income sources over $1,000, but they do not have to provide exact figures.

Pass-through, or shell, companies became an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign when Republican candidate Mitt Romney disclosed a private equity entity worth $1.9 million despite failing to report the company on his previous federal disclosure. Romney aides said the company previously held no assets but then received the $1.9 million “true up” payment — a catch-up payment to make up for private equity fees from defunct investment advisory businesses that had not been previously paid.

DCG

Demonic “Charlie Charlie Challenge” game spreads on social media

A version of the Ouija board game is spreading like wildfire among children and young people via social media like Twitter.

It’s called the “Charlie Charlie Challenge,” allegedly named after a Mexican demon named Charlie.

Charlie Charlie Challenge

The Daily Mail reports, May 26, 2015, that the newest fad for children and teenagers is to try to summon a Mexican demon. It involves writing “Yes” and “No” twice on a sheet of paper, crossing two pencils and then asking if the demon is present.

Game-players first chant “Charlie, Charlie, can we play?” twice, and wait to see if the crossed pencil points towards yes or no. If the pencils point towards yes, they ask the demon questions.

To end the game, they must ask permission to stop by chanting “Charlie, Charlie can we stop?” and wait until “Charlie” says yes by pointing the pencil to the correct square. Game-players must then drop the pencils to the floor so “the demon portal to his or her own home hasn’t been left wide open forever,” pencils.com reported.

People are filming and sharing their experiences of playing the game on Twitter.

Rumor has it the game, which has similar psychological effects as using a Ouija board, has ancient origins and that it’s almost a rite of passage for Mexican children to play it. It’s been reported that some children claim strange things have happened while playing the game, such as hearing laughter, or seeing bizarre shadows, while others have been left disappointed.

A priest in Philadelphia wrote an open letter to pupils at the Saints John Neumann and Mario Goretti Catholic High School warning them there is “no such thing as ‘innocently playing with demons’. Please be sure to NOT participate and and encourage others to avoid participation as well. The problem with opening yourself up to demonic activity is that it opens a window of possibilities which is not easily closed.”

The Independent says what’s actually moving the pencils is gravity, and the awkward positioning of some pencils. The pencils have to be so finely balanced on top of each other that even the slightest movement from a breath or slightly tilted surface will push it around. The arrangement of pencils that the game requires means that they’ll always move, because it’s just not a natural position for them to be in.

If you’d like to debunk the game for yourself, try doing the same thing without the paper and without the incantation. Pencils placed on top of and across each other always move around, whether or not a demon is summoned to push them.

In a report just 6 hours ago, the BBC says “More than 2 million people have used the hashtag #CharlieCharlieChallenge over the past 48 hours.

Maria Elena Navez of BBC Mundo disputes the claim that the game originated in Mexico: “There’s no demon called ‘Charlie’ in Mexico. Mexican legends often come from ancient Aztec and Maya history, or from the many beliefs that began circulating during the Spanish conquest. In Mexican mythology you can find gods with names like ‘Tlaltecuhtli’ or ‘Tezcatlipoca’ in the Nahuatl language. But if this legend began after the Spanish conquest, I’m sure it would’ve been called ‘Carlitos’ (Charlie in Spanish). Mexican demons are usually American inventions.”

Describing the game as a traditional Mexican way to summon the dead is probably a way to make it sound mysterious or meaningful – in the same way that the Ouija board has its roots in a clever bit of 19th century American marketing rather than ancient Egypt. Another possible explanation is a YouTube video posted a year ago which shows a slightly different pencil trick. It’s in Spanish, and its title translates as “Playing Charlie Charlie.”

Whatever the game’s origin, the players’ intent to summon demons is real. Please warn your children or grandchildren NOT to play it. There have been cases of demonic possession that began with playing the Ouija board, the most famous being the girl in the 1971 novel by William Peter Blatty which was made into the 1973 movie The Exorcist. Blatty’s novel was based on an actual 1949 exorcism of a young boy from Cottage City, Maryland.

See my post of Dec. 2, 2012, “What happened to the boy in ‘The Exorcist’.

~Éowyn

U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment

U.S. military oath of enlistment

The Oath of Enlistment

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Military discipline and effectiveness is built on the foundation of obedience to orders. Recruits are taught to obey, immediately and without question, orders from their superiors, right from day-one of boot camp.

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences”

  • Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.
  • Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer.
  • Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be “willful” under this article).

Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you’re given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders — if the order was illegal.

“I was only following orders,” has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn’t work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the “I was only following orders” defense dates back to 1799.

During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President’s instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders “act at their own peril” when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.

HAT-TIP to About.com

The NCOs in our military are the ones who suffer the most from orders that are questionable at best. They are responsible for directing the junior enlisted servicemen, who are most susceptible to following illegal orders. Pray for our small unit leaders and give them the courage they need to follow all lawful orders.

~Justin

California Medical Association drops opposition to doctor-assisted suicide

Hippocratic Oath

According to a report from California Catholic Daily, May 22, 2015, the state of California has added a new first to its dubious list of achievements.

Formerly opposed to physician-assisted suicide — euthanasia in non-PC parlance — last Wednesday, May 20, 2015, the California Medical Association (CMA) removed its opposition to a controversial bill in the state legislature that would allow terminally ill Californians to end their lives with doctor-prescribed drugs.

In so doing, CMA became America’s first state medical association to drop its opposition to euthanasia.

Although CMA has long opposed doctor-assisted suicide on grounds that it violates doctors’ ethical and moral obligations to provide the best treatment possible, the medical association recently changed its bylaws so that it is now neutral on the issue by deleting the term “physician-assisted suicide” and replacing it with “aid in dying.” Its rationale is that it is simply acknowledging a shift in doctor and patient attitudes about end-of-life and aid-in-dying options. Dr. Luther Cobb, president of the California Medical Association and a Humboldt County general surgeon, said, “I’ve always felt that way, but I was surprised the membership of the organization had changed.”

Luther Cobb, MD

In January of this year, Sacramento lawmakers introduced SB128: End of Life Option Act, three months after Brittany Maynard, 29, set off a worldwide movement in support of “aid in dying” by sharing her own decision to die with the help of her doctor. Maynard, who had terminal brain cancer, moved to Oregon to access the state’s Death with Dignity law, which the California legislation uses as a model. Maynard claimed her final months were made more difficult by not being able to access life-ending drugs in her home state. She died Nov. 1, 2015, after using the lethal prescription. Her husband and mother have continued to share her story in the state Capitol to encourage lawmakers to change California’s laws so that others don’t have to move for similar end-of-life options.

SB128 would require two California physicians to agree that a mentally competent patient has six months or less to live before prescribing life-ending drugs. A terminal patient seeking the lethal prescription would then be required to make a written request and two oral requests at least 15 days apart.

Opponents of the bill argue that vulnerable people can be coerced into seeking the deadly prescription by heirs looking to profit or by health insurers who find it cheaper to offer aid in dying rather than chemotherapy to live. “It’s a bad bill because it has the possibility of impacting the most vulnerable in California who don’t have access to health insurance or the best of care and whose options are limited,” said Tim Rosales, spokesman for Californians Against Assisted Suicide.

SB128 passed along strictly party lines (Democrats for; Republicans opposed) in two Senate committees — health and judiciary. But since California voters persist in electing Democrats to a majority to the state legislature, the euthanasia bill is likely to become law.

Certainly, CMA’s move paves the way for passage of the bill, although opposition remains in the Catholic Church and among some disability rights groups. 

In removing its opposition to SB128, California Medical Association had sought an amendment to the bill to ensure that doctors who did not want to participate would also not be required to provide information on assisted-dying or refer a patient to a medical provider willing to offer such services, although there will still be other sources and opportunities for patients to learn about aid in dying.

The amendments are expected to be finalized and made public this week.

~Éowyn

Moon rock given to Holland by astronauts Armstrong & Aldrin is fake

The fake moon rock bequeathed to the Rijksmuseum on the death of former Dutch Prime Minister Willem Drees. (Photo credit HO/AFP/Getty Images)

The fake moon rock bequeathed to the Rijksmuseum on the death of former Dutch Prime Minister Willem Drees. (Photo credit HO/AFP/Getty Images)

The Telegraph reports, Aug. 29, 2009, that a “moon rock” given to former Dutch prime minister Willem Drees by the three Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin “Buzz” Adrin during a global tour following their moon mission in 1969, is a fake.

J. William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to the Netherlands, had made the presentation to Drees. The rock was later donated to Amsterdam’s Rijksmuseum by Drees’ estate after his death in 1988.

Curators at Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the “lunar rock”, valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood, possibly from Arizona.

Researchers at Amsterdam’s Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests. Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation, said, “It’s a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone.”

Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation, said the museum would continue to keep the stone as a curiosity: “It’s a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered. We can laugh about it.”

For his part, former Ambassador Middendorf said, “I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it’s not real, I don’t know anything about that.”

The misidentification of the rock given to Drees raised questions about how well countries have safeguarded their presents from Washington.

NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in 1969 and the 1970s. Of 135 rocks from the Apollo 17 mission given away to nations or their leaders, only about 25 have been located by CollectSpace.com, a website for space history buffs that has long attempted to compile a list. Of the estimated 134 Apollo 11 rocks, the locations of only fewer than a dozen are known. However, USA Today said that should not be taken to mean the others are lost — just that the records kept at the time are far from complete.

NASA keeps most of the 382 kilograms (842 lbs) gathered by the Apollo missions locked away, giving small samples to researchers and lending a set of larger rocks for exhibitions. Genuine moon rocks, while worthless in mineral terms, can fetch six-figure sums from black-market collectors. In one known legal sale of moon samples, in 1993, moon soil weighing 0.2 grams from an unmanned Russian probe was auctioned at Sotheby’s for $442,500. Apollo 11 gift rocks typically weigh just 0.05 grams, scarcely more than a grain of rice. The Apollo 17 gift rocks weigh about 1.1 grams. Both are encased in plastic globes to protect them and ease viewing.

In the case of the fake moon rock that the Rijksmuseum inherited from Drees’ estate, The Telegraph story in 2009 said “The U. S. Embassy in The Hague is carrying out an investigation into the affair.”

But according to the undated USA Today article, the Amsterdam case appears to be not fraud but the result of poor vetting by the Rijksmuseum. Spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder said the museum checked with NASA after receiving the rock in 1992 from the estate of the late Prime Minister Willem Drees. NASA told the museum, without seeing it, that it was “possible” it was a moon rock. But the rock weighed a whopping 89 grams (3.1 ounces). In addition, its gold-colored cardboard plaque does not describe it as a moon rock.

The U.S. ambassador gave Drees the rock during an Oct. 9, 1969 visit by the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands. Drees’s grandson, also named Willem, told the AP his grandfather had been out of office for more than a decade and was nearly deaf and blind in 1969, though his mind was still sharp: “My guess is that he did not hear well what was said. He may have formed his own idea about what it was.” The family never thought to question the story before donating the rock, to which they attached neither great importance nor monetary value.

Even if we assume that the Drees family story about Prime Minister Willem having misheard what the rock was, why would the Apollo 11 astronauts or Ambassador Middendorf give the prime minister a piece of petrified wood?

That makes no sense.

H/t Barry Soetoro, Esq.

See also “Are the crew members of 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger still alive?” and “Who really are the deadringer brothers of dead Challenger astronauts?

~Éowyn

Leader of U.S. veterans coalition renews Patrick Henry’s call to liberty

I am an American citizen

Below is the Memorial Day speech delivered by my friend John J. Molloy, Chairman of the National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition, at the Ride For Freedom Rally (of biker veterans) in Rainelle, West Virginia, on May 23, 2015.

John Molloy

Brothers & Sisters,

Though it is customary over the Memorial Day weekend to render flowery speeches about our departed veterans who sacrificed their lives for our freedom, this will not be one of them.

This year marks the 240th anniversary of the commencement of the Battle of Lexington (though some may argue that the Revolution began at the Battle of Point Pleasant, here in West Virginia). This year is also the 70th anniversary of the defeat of the Nazis and Tojo in World War II. Each event a high point in our nation’s history. However, it also marks a sad anniversary, the 40th anniversary of the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese, when the lives and sacrifices of American and allied South Vietnamese soldiers were disgracefully discarded by cowardly politicians.

Since that fateful day in April 1975, it appears that our armed forces have rarely been permitted to fight to win. Then as now, ridiculous rules of engagement do not permit our fighters to engage the enemy, even when being shot at, without first getting authorization.  Well, new flash! The purpose of our armed forces is supposed to be ‘kill people and break things’. Hearts and minds are won though victory and fear. We should be generous in victory, but not before.

The fact that our political leaders have abrogated all our past sacrifices is obvious.

The National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition was established to resolve those issues important to those of us who served in, as well as those who support veterans of Vietnam, the First Gulf War and all of America’s subsequent wars. The issues include:

  • Prisoners of war (POW) and missing in action (MIA)
  • Agent Orange
  • Gulf War illness
  • Homeless veterans
  • Veterans employment/unemployment
  • Veterans health care/V.A. hospitals

However, efforts to resolve these issues are meaningless if Americans lose their freedom. Upon entering our nation’s armed forces, we swore to defend the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Without freedom, we can resolve nothing.

Consequently, it is the primary objective of the Coalition — and the 70 veterans organizations and the over quarter of a million veterans it represents — to support those measures that will ensure the freedom, safety and security of the United States of America, which this administration is not ensuring.

Unlike most veterans organizations, the Coalition is not a veterans service organization. It is a political/educational organization that evaluates and endorses candidates for political office, by determining if they are capable and willing to not only support those issues of concern to veterans, but most importantly, abide by their oath of office should they be elected. Unfortunately, those who fail to abide by their oath outnumber those whom the Coalition has endorsed, and even some who the Coalition has endorsed have succumbed to the dictates of this administration and congressional leadership.

It is because of this administration’s sympathy toward those who would destroy us politically, economically and militarily, as well as the weakness and complicity of many senators and representatives, that America is now at great risk. America is besieged on all sides whether by racial-ethnic unrest, illegal immigration, Islamic terror, and even an Ebola outbreak. But this administration and the liars who support it expect us to believe that our greatest problem is climate change. They think us to be idiots and treat us accordingly. I think that I can safely assure you that this cannot continue without a reckoning. And I suspect that this administration wants it to occur so that it will be provoked into subduing us.

One only needs to look at some of our leaders to see where America is headed. Obama has failed to subdue ISIS, uses executive action to provide amnesty to illegal aliens, refers to those killed by Muslim terrorists at Benghazi as “bumps in the road,” and refers to the Fort Hood massacre as workplace terror.

Well, who are his advisors and senior cabinet members?

  • Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), who praises the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • Valerie Jarrett, White House senior advisor, an Iranian Muslim who treats our senior military leaders with disdain.
  • John Brennan, CIA chief, who is a Muslim.
  • Gen Clapper, Director of National Security, who is a moron.
  • Mohamed Elibiary, senior member of the DHS Security Advisory Council, who is an advocate of Hamas.
  • Eric Holder, U.S. attorney general (2009-2015), who wanted to take away our second amendment rights and supports the rioters who defy our police.
  • Loretta Lynch, Holder’s successor who wants to nationalize our police forces.
  • Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s advisor, whose father and brother are senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • Al Sharpton, the race baiter and agitator who defends criminals against legitimate law enforcement.

So what can we do?

Here, I must take the liberty of referring to and paraphrasing a famous speech made in the Spring of 1775, the eve of the American War for Independence.

“They tell us, sir, that we are weak, unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week or next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed and when members of the FEMA or DHS or the “federal protective agency” (formerly, the police) invade every house?

Shall we gather strength by irresolution or inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope until our enemies have bound us hand and foot?

We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means by which God has placed in our power. Millions of people, armed in the holy cause of Liberty, in such a country as we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battle with us.

This battle is not for the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, and the brave. Though in 2016 an election by peaceful means is desirable, there is that possibility that it may not be achievable, in which case there will be no retreat but submission or slavery.

Our chains are forged and heard on the streets of Washington, D.C. If war is inevitable to preserve our freedom, then let it come!

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I wonder, at times, whether we are not already there.”

******************************************************

Now friends, it may soon be up to us to prevent those freedoms which were defended by our forefathers whom we memorialize this weekend, from being lost.

These freedoms must be passed on to our descendants. However, they must not take these freedoms for granted. They must be willing to join our efforts.

Though many hope that the presidential election of 2016 will resolve America’s problems, of that I would not be too confident.

Last year, we gave a vote of no confidence to Obama when we obtained Republican majority in the Senate and retained the Republican majority in the House. Unfortunately, the leadership of those whom we elected are weak and, I daresay, treacherous. In addition, with the possibility of illegals casting ballots and the continuation of election fraud, we would be foolish to place confidence in an election that may truly be rigged or be a shallow or empty victory.

In either case whether we like it or not, hope rings hollow and achieves nothing. If ISIS or rioters were to attack our homeland, if our government attempts to disarm us, we cannot defeat them with hope. Unfortunately, based on what appears to be on the national horizon, the ultimate solution may be Bullets rather than Ballots.

As Patrick Henry said so admirably at the end of his speech that Spring day 240 years ago:

Give me Liberty or Give me Death!!!!

Patrick Henry

For Patrick Henry’s speech, “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!,” at the Second Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775, in Richmond, Virginia, go here.

In Liberty,

~Éowyn