Constitution Day

“Done … the Seventeenth Day of September, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.”

September 17th is Constitution Day, marking the anniversary of the signing of our Republic’s Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. It is the most consequential governing document in history of mankind, a dramatic departure from the rule of tyrants over the course of all preceding generations, and standing in stark contrast to those totalitarian regimes which have risen since. It codified and enshrined the foundation of American Liberty enumerated in our Declaration of Independence, providing the assurance that Rule of Law would prevail over rule of men, the terminus of the latter irrevocably being tyranny.

We are the beneficiaries of generations of American Patriots who pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor “to support and defend” that Liberty.

Thus, we invite you to honor this historic event and its enduring legacy by reading our treatise on American Liberty. Keep the flame of Liberty burning bright by promoting the civic knowledge of Liberty for all those in your sphere of influence. We offer an excellent resource for that purpose, our highly acclaimed “Patriot’s Primer on American Liberty” pocket guides, which are available for bulk purchase and distribution to students, grassroots organizations, civic clubs, political gatherings, military and public service personnel, professional associations, and others.

As the current generation of American Patriots, we hold all elected representatives accountable to abide by their solemn oaths “to Support and Defend” our Constitution.

Constitution Day also marks The Patriot Post’s anniversary, and we are grateful to you, our fellow Patriots, for your financial support of our mission and operations budget in order to extend Liberty to the next generation.

Other resources:

Read Alexander’s treatise on American Liberty and our sacred obligation to “To Support and Defend” our Constitution.

Visit Alexander’s archive of columns on the Constitution, specifically those on Liberty and on our Republic’s First Principles.

The ‘Unalienable Rights of Man’ — A Civics Lesson

The Federalist Papers

The Bill of Rights: ‘To Secure These Rights’

The 50 U.S. State Constitutions on God

Constitutional Interpretation

A ‘Living Constitution’ for a Dying Republic

Judicial Supremacists and the Despotic Branch

Rule of Law vs. rule of men


Patriot Post columnist Bill Federer provided a brief history of our Constitution for a better understanding of the context of this most significant of historical documents.

“Done … the SEVENTEENTH DAY of SEPTEMBER, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.”

This is the last line of the U.S. Constitution.

Signer of the Constitution James McHenry noted in his diary (American Historical Review, 1906), that after Ben Franklin left the Constitutional Convention, he was asked by Mrs. Elizabeth Powel of Philadelphia: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defined “REPUBLIC”: An “exercise of the SOVEREIGN POWER is lodged in representatives elected by THE PEOPLE.”

To help explain, DEMOCRACY has come to have two definitions: one is the general concept of people ruling themselves; the other is an actual system of government.

As an actual system of government, a DEMOCRACY is where THE PEOPLE are KING ruling directly, whereas a REPUBLIC is where THE PEOPLE are KING, ruling through their representatives.

As an actual system of government, a DEMOCRACY only successfully worked on a small basis, like a Greek city-state, where every citizen went to the marketplace everyday to discuss politics.

“Politics” is from the Greek word “polis” which means “the business of the city.” The same word translated into Latin is “civics.”

“Citizen” is also contrasted with “subject.”

Kings have “subjects” who are subjected to their will. Democracies and republics have “citizens.”

“Citizen” is a Greek word which means co-ruler, co-sovereign, co-king. Citizens participate in ruling themselves.

Democracy, as a system of government, is limited in size, as once a city grows so large that citizens cannot come to the market everyday, control is transferred to those who carry news of what is being discussed, which can be slanted one way or another. Republics can grow larger, as citizens spend their time taking care of their families and farms, and representatives go in their place to the market everyday to discuss politics.

A “constitutional republic” is where the representatives are limited by a set of rules approved by the citizens.

Theodore Roosevelt stated October 24, 1903: “In no other place and at no other time has the experiment of government of the people, by the people, for the people, been tried on so vast a scale as here in our own country.”

A republic only lasts as long as the citizens have morals, virtue, and self-control.

John Adams warned October 11, 1798: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other …”

He added: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge … would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.”

In the Roman Republic, “representatives” were hereditary positions.

The American Republic is a hybrid, where representatives are democratically elected.

Yale President Ezra Stiles stated in 1788: “Most states of all ages … have been founded in rapacity, usurpation and injustice … All the forms of CIVIL POLITY (government systems) have been tried by mankind, EXCEPT ONE: and that seems to have been reserved in Providence to be realized in America.”

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, stated September 8, 1777: “The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon, and choosing the forms of government under which they should live. All other constitutions have derived their existence from violence or accidental circumstances.”

Ronald Reagan stated in 1961: “In this country of ours took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world’s history. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another.”

Declaration signer James Wilson, who also signed the Constitution and was appointed to the Supreme Court by George Washington, remarked at Pennsylvania’s ratifying convention, November 26, 1787: “Governments, in general, have been the result of force, of fraud, and accident. After a period of 6,000 years has elapsed since the creation, the United States exhibit to the world the first instance … of a nation … assembling voluntarily … and deciding calmly concerning that system of government under which they would wish that they and their posterity should live.”

John Adams wrote in his notes on Canon & Feudal Law, 1765: “I always consider the settlement of America with reverence … as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.”

In 1802, Daniel Webster stated in a Fourth of July Oration: “The history of the world is before us … The civil, the social, the Christian virtues are requisite to render us worthy the continuation of that government which is the freest on earth.”

After the U.S. Constitution was written, it needed to be ratified by nine states in order to go into effect. Eight states had ratified it, and New Hampshire was in line to be the ninth, but disagreements caused it to stall.

The Governor of New Hampshire declared a Day of Fasting. New Hampshire reconvened its ratifying convention in June of 1788.

Harvard President Rev. Samuel Langdon gave an address which was instrumental in convincing the delegates to ratify the Constitution.

The Portsmouth Daily Evening Times, January 1, 1891, acknowledged Rev. Samuel Langdon’s influence: “… by his voice and example he contributed more perhaps, than any other man to the favorable action of that body.”

Langdon’s address was titled “The REPUBLIC of the ISRAELITES an example to the AMERICAN STATES,” June 5, 1788. In it, he stated: “Instead of the twelve tribes of Israel, we may substitute the thirteen states of the American union, and see this application plainly … That as God in the course of his kind providence hath given you an excellent Constitution of government, founded on the most rational, equitable, and liberal principles, by which all that liberty is secured … and you are impowered to make righteous laws for promoting public order and good morals; and as he has moreover given you by his Son Jesus Christ … a complete revelation of his will … it will be your wisdom … to … adhere faithfully to the doctrines and commands of the gospel, and practice every public and private virtue.”

Langdon continued: “The Israelites may be considered as a pattern to the world in all ages … Government … on republican principles, required laws; without which it must have degenerated immediately into … absolute monarchy … How unexampled was this quick progress of the Israelites, from abject slavery, ignorance, and almost total want of order, to a national establishment perfected in all its parts far beyond all other kingdoms and states! From a mere mob, to a well regulated nation, under a government and laws far superior to what any other nation could boast! …”

Langdon concluded: “It was a long time after the law of Moses was given before the rest of the world knew any thing of government by law … It was six hundred years after Moses before … Grecian republics received a very imperfect … code of laws from Lycurgus. It was about five hundred years from the first founding of the celebrated Roman empire … before the first laws of that empire.”

After Langdon’s address, New Hampshire’s delegates voted to ratify the U.S. Constitution, thus putting it into effect.

Professors Donald S. Lutz and Charles S. Hyneman published an article in American Political Science Review, 1984, titled “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late 18th-Century American Political Thought.”

They examined nearly 15,000 writings of the 55 writers of the U.S. Constitution, including newspaper articles, pamphlets, books and monographs, and discovered that the Bible, especially the book of Deuteronomy, contributed 34 percent of all direct quotes made by the Founders.

When indirect Bible citations were included, the percentage rose even higher.

Benjamin Franklin wrote to the Editor of the Federal Gazette, April 8, 1788 (The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Farrand’s Records, Vol. 3, CXCV, pp. 296-297; Documentary History of the Constitution, IV, 567-571): “I beg I may not be understood to infer, that our general Convention was divinely inspired when it form’d the new federal Constitution … yet I must own I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence, that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to the welfare of millions now existing, and to exist in the posterity of a great nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenc’d, guided and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent Beneficent Ruler, in whom all inferior spirits live & move and have their being.”

Alexander Hamilton wrote of the Constitution in his Letters of Caesar, 1787: “Whether the New Constitution, if adopted, will prove adequate to such desirable ends, time, the mother of events, will show. For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system, which, without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.”

George Washington opened the Constitutional Convention, stating: “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God.”

Harry S Truman wrote in his Memoirs-Volume Two: Years of Trial and Hope: “The men who wrote the Constitution knew … that tyrannical government had come about where the powers of government were united in the hands of one man. The system they set up was designed to prevent a demagogue or ‘a man on horseback’ from taking over the powers of government … The most important thought expressed in our Constitution is that the power of government shall always remain limited, through the separation of powers.”

Ten days after his Inauguration, President Washington wrote to the United Baptist Churches of Virginia, May 10, 1789:

“If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical Society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it.”

President Washington, the same week Congress passed the Bill of Rights, declared, October 3, 1789: “Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me ‘to recommend … a Day of Public Thanksgiving and Prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness’ … I do recommend … the 26th day of November … to be devoted by the People of these United States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be …”

Washington continued: “That we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks … for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed.”

Poet Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote: “America is another name for opportunity. Our whole history appears like a last effort of Divine Providence in behalf of the human race.”

G.K. Chersterton wrote in “What is America” (What I Saw In America, 1922): “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on creed. That creed is set forth … in the Declaration of Independence … that all men are equal in their claim to justice, that governments exist to give them that justice … The Declaration … certainly does condemn … atheism, since it clearly names the Creator as the ultimate authority from whom these equal rights are derived.”

James Madison wrote to Jefferson, October 24, 1787, that writing the Constitution: “… formed a task more difficult than can be well conceived … Adding to these considerations the natural diversity of human opinions on all new and complicated subjects, it is impossible to consider the degree of concord which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle.”

George Washington wrote to Marquis de Lafayette, February 7, 1788: “As to … the new Constitution … it appears to me, then, little short of a miracle, that the delegates from so many different states … should unite in forming a system of national Government.”

Daniel Webster stated: “Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often … Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution of your country and the government established under it … Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with evolution and tumult, riot and despotism.”

James Madison wrote in Sept of 1829 (Writings 9:351-57): “The happy Union of these states is a wonder; their Constitution — a miracle; their example the hope of liberty throughout the world. Woe to the ambition that would meditate the destruction of either!”

U.S. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge stated in 1919: “The United States is THE WORLD’S BEST HOPE … Beware how you trifle with your marvelous inheritance … for if we stumble & fall, freedom and civilization everywhere will go down in ruin.”

Indeed.

ICYMI: Biden’s Withdrawal Was Scripted Long Ago

“His decision is … an act of self-sacrifice that places him in the company of George Washington.”

“The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism.” —George Washington (1796)

It’s official: Sunday was National Ice Cream Day!

Oh, and you may have heard that while Joe Biden was napping, his puppeteers decided it would be a great day to drop a social media post saying he was ending his 2024 presidential campaign.

In an announcement posted to X, Biden’s handlers first reminded us of what a great president he has been. You know, except for his long list of disastrous domestic and foreign policy failures.

The post then noted: “While it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.”

Right … if he makes it to the end of his term. And note the order, “best interest of my party and the country.”

Shortly after announcing his withdrawal, Biden’s handlers then did the only thing they could do on his behalf: They endorsed his sidekick, Kamala Harris. “Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year,” said Biden’s statement. “Democrats — it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this.”

Of course, Biden had already tested positive for “dropping out” two days earlier, then retreated to his Delaware basement. Reportedly, the vaxxed and boosted “Pandemic of the Unvaccinated” President tested positive for the ChiCom Virus.

Predictably, after his announcement he was lauded as the greatest of presidents and a great statesman who fell on his own sword to “save democracy.”

Harris led the pack: “In one term, he has already surpassed the legacy of most presidents who served two terms in office.” Again, if she means their legacy of domestic and foreign policy failures, she is right.

Biden’s spokesparrot, Karine Jean-Pierre, got the memo: “President Biden will go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents. Accomplishing more in 4 years than many accomplished in 8 years. He is also an honorable man. A decent man. And a person who has always put the country first.” Except as noted above, he always puts “party” first.

But my favorites accolades are those from Biden sycophants comparing him to George Washington:

“Joe Biden is precisely the kind of leader George Washington would have hoped for [and] honors George Washington’s example.” —Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

“[Like] George Washington…I didn’t have any doubt that Joe would make the patriotic call for the country.” —Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA)

“Like our first president…Biden’s decision to step aside from his reelection run will cement his legacy among some of the greatest statesmen in our country’s history.” —Senator Angus King (I-ME)

“[Biden’s] selfless act this weekend reminds me of what George Washington did when he voluntarily gave up reelection and put country first.” —Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA)

“[Washington’s legacy] can be President Biden’s legacy as well.” Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)

And from his Leftmedia publicists:

“His decision is one of the most remarkable acts of leadership in our history, an act of self-sacrifice that places him in the company of George Washington.” —commentator Jon Meacham

“Joe Biden joins George Washington as America’s second Cincinnatus.” —The Hill’s Rebecca Brannon

“He gets to go out as the George Washington of his party.” —NPR’s Mara Liasson

“He will be remembered as a great president. He will be mentioned in the same sentence as George Washington.” —NBC’s Jonathan Alter

Political analyst Jeff Jacoby rebutted the nonsensical comparisons: “In almost every important way, Washington’s decision was the opposite of Biden’s. Most Americans did not want Biden to run again and did not think he could handle the job. For almost the entirety of his presidency, Biden’s approval rating has been underwater. … Give Biden credit for bowing to the inevitable. But the man is no George Washington.”

More to the point, Gov. Ron DeSantis observed: “This notion that the media is trying to peddle that [Biden] is like George Washington refusing power for the good of the country — he had no choice! They were knifing him in the back!”

Back to reality…

Republicans are rightly demanding that Biden step down now, given that it is clear he does not have the capacity to govern for the rest of his term.

Furthermore, as we have noted before, there is very visceral concern that if Donald Trump wins in November, or if it appears he will win, global evil-doers will accelerate their aggression in the remaining months under the toothless Biden/Harris regime. Putin may advance further into Ukraine, Iran will amp up its nuclear weapons program, and, of greatest concern, Red China could come across the Taiwan Strait.

Sidebar: Who is actually running the executive branch, and who has access to the football, the nuke codes? Just asking for a friend.

Regarding Harris’s role in keeping one of the worst-kept secrets in the history of American politics quiet — that Biden was inept and incompetent — Gov. Ron DeSantis summed up the Republican indictment of her: “Kamala Harris was complicit in a massive coverup to hide and deny the fact that Joe Biden was not capable of discharging the duties of the office. Democrats are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.”

So, about those deck chairs… Our team’s managing editor, Nate Jackson, is on leave for the next four weeks, a break we wanted to provide him given he just crossed the 20-year mark with The Patriot Post. However, before leaving last Friday, he staked out his position that Biden’s “medical condition” was a layup for his exit before the weekend was out. Moreover, he said he regretted being gone for our Monday staff meeting because I might pull a Hulk Hogan convention move, ripping my shirt off to remind the crew of what I predicted almost 22 months ago: “Biden Will (NOT) Be the Demo Nominee in 2024.”

Yeah, no shirts were ripped, but Nate was right about the weekend withdrawal. I thought Biden would make it to the convention, during which he would take his name out and the delegates would determine his successor. I suspect Demo strategists decided there was too much risk of a convention fight over who would replace Biden, creating division within the party, so best to announce Harris now.

Looking back, when I first asserted in October of ‘22 that Biden would be out, some readers thought I had taken leave of my senses, resulting in emails over the next 15 months basically saying, “No way; you’re nuts.”

Though I have stood my ground on that assessment every day since then, I have frequently said I hope I am wrong — because I think the Biden/Harris ticket would be the easiest for Donald Trump to defeat.

This week, I have received many inquiries to the effect of, “How did you know?” The short answer is simply a keen sense of the obvious.

Until recently, the mainstream media, both Right and Left, rejected the notion of Biden withdrawing, not because it wasn’t plausible, but because their job is, first and foremost, to endlessly churn speculation in order to sell advertising — yet another reason The Patriot Post is a certified ad-free website.

I have been an analyst in one capacity or another for 45 years, and when it comes to political perspective, I am very deliberate about not immersing myself in any of the endless loops of media churn. Of course, that is what you should expect from a grassroots publication far outside the Beltway media circles.

Consequently, sometimes we can see and say more clearly what the MSM and those stuck in their echo chambers don’t.

Some conservative media outlets claim that six months ago, Trump predicted that Biden would withdraw. I think that Trump and his strategists have been planning on this withdrawal for much longer than that. And despite the preponderance of opinion this week that Biden just succumbed to recent pressure to resign, I think the mechanics of his withdrawal — whom it would be and when — were scripted six to eight months ago.

In other words, millions of Demo primary voters should be, uh, fire-breathing angry for being duped. I mean, Biden spent all but the last three days of the last three years insisting there is no chance he would decline the nomination. Of course, Biden is the consummate “lying dog-faced pony soldier,” and if all those Demos were not predisposed to being duped, they would not be voting Democrat in the first place.

In fact, Demos nullified 14 million primary votes to “secure democracy,” and Harris was out stumping yesterday, insisting her administration will “make sure every vote counts.”

As commentator Ben Shapiro concluded: “Democratic Party bosses and money men tossed out 14 million votes in favor of Joe Biden in the primaries because the polls looked bad. It’s that simple.”

To be clear, Harris will be the nominee, unless she takes herself out, and there’s no way that happens unless she and Hunter Biden have been sharing his White House powder.

Moreover, if she were not the nominee, Demos would have to refund all the money the campaign has raised.

She comes with a ready-made war chest, and because so many BIG Demo donors were withholding their support until Biden departed, in the three days since she became the presumed nominee, they have ponied up more than $230 million.

Biden’s campaign donations plummeted as mega-donors pushed him to quit. But the came roaring back for Kamala.

First and foremost, billionaire leftist George Soros and his son Alex, were quick to endorse Harris and get their big bucks in. Son Alex declared, “Long live the American Dream!”

Of course, all the BIG Demo politicos have endorsed Harris, as have the most notable Demo members of Congress.

All this fanfare aside, inquiring minds want to know: Who brung this post turtle to the dance?

There is an old adage: “If you come across a turtle on a post, you know it didn’t get up there on its own, it doesn’t belong there, its elevated beyond its ability to function, it doesn’t know what to do there, and you gotta wonder what idiot would put it there.”

There are a few folks who are still not sure she should be at the dance.

While Bill and Hillary Clinton were quick to endorse Harris, that other first black president, Barack Obama, did not endorse Harris, perhaps to keep Michelle O’s constituency intact until SHE gives Harris a glowing endorsement at the convention.

Of course, as you may recall, Obama did previously give Harris his personal endorsement, observing she was “by far, the best-looking attorney general” in the nation. You know, kind of the same category of endorsement Obama got from Biden when the latter described the former as “the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

The New York Times editorial board laments: “[P]arty delegates should have a voice in a decision of this consequence. There are other qualified Democrats who could take on Mr. Trump and win, and picking a candidate without a real contest is how the party got into a position of anointing a standard-bearer that large majorities of Democrats and independents had profound concerns about.”

Perhaps the Times should take a gander at its own delegate map. She has already received the allegiance of more than 3,000 Demo delegates and only needs 1,976 for the nomination.

Moving forward, anyone who assumes Republicans now have the presidency in the bag, as some in conservative echo chambers are predicting, are, well, flat wrong.

Some conservative analysts argue that Harris is the opponent Trump wanted, but as I noted previously, the Biden/Harris ticket was an easier dispatch. With Biden’s “non compos mentis” factor now removed from the equation, that will more than offset concerns about Harris. Thus, I think Trump’s election prospects just got steeper.

Despite the fact Trump currently holds a slight polling lead against Harris, I expect Harris will gain ground in the coming weeks ahead of her DNC coronation. Whether she can hold that ground after the convention, we will see.

The unmitigated fear and hatred of Trump, which Biden/Harris have masterfully cultivated, will keep most Demos in Harris’s voting line.

The election will come down to decisions in the swing states and how effective the Democrats’ massive bulk-mail ballot fraud strategy works this time around.

But as political analyst Byron York notes: “There’s a reason Harris rose in the [2020] race and a reason she fell. The short version is that, for Democratic voters, Harris seemed appealing when she first started her campaign, and then they liked her less and less as they got to know her. Familiarity with the candidate killed her hopes.”

(BTW, there is obvious speculation on who will be Harris’s VP. I think, given that undermining the Second Amendment will be a big part of her campaign, I think she will choose Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), former astronaut and Navy pilot, and husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords, seriously injured in an armed attack.)

Next up, a column with my assessment of Harris’s qualifications.

Spoiler alert: It ain’t gonna be pretty!

Finally, in the same vein as not getting caught up in all the media churn, don’t let them control the narrative.

This is not about Joe Biden or Kamala Harris; it is about the pervasive threat posed by the socialist Democrat Party to American Liberty.

As political observer Dennis Prager notes: “I have never understood why Republicans always concentrate their fire on their Democratic opponent while ignoring virtually any mention of the threat posed by the Democratic Party and the Left. … ‘The destructive, dangerous Democratic Party has to go.’ That should be — and should have been for decades — the message of every Republican candidate for every office in the land.”

PS: Don’t you dare ask if Kamala Harris is actually constitutionally eligible to be president. Yes, Harris’s citizenship status when born is not clear, giving rise to that pesky question, but the leftist so-called “fact-checkers” will b*tch-slap you into the next universe for asking. However, the question about her citizenship is much more legitimate than what I always considered to be the spurious questions about Obama’s citizenship. But who pays attention to the fallacious errancy of so-called “Birthright Citizenship” these days…

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

Follow Mark Alexander on X/Twitter.

Hate, Division, and a Resolution to Rise Above

“Seeking God’s blessing and humbling ourselves to receive His Grace and Mercy, transforming ourselves, our communities, our State, and our Nation.”

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” —John Adams (1798)

When I researched the Tennessee legislature’s Joint Resolution 803 in June in preparation for writing about it this month, I had no idea just how relevant and timely it would be.

The attempted assassination of Donald Trump last weekend gave me pause to look at this Joint Resolution, declaring July a Month of Prayer, with a greater sense of urgency. My analysis of that attempt, “Trump, Biden, the Assassin, and the Secret Service,” as well as consideration of Trump’s humble response to his near-death experience, makes it ever more clear that this Resolution is one Trump should recraft when he and J.D. Vance take office next January.

OK, that is hopeful but presumptuous on my part, given we do not actually know yet who the Democrat nominee will be. I still believe the Demo delegates will replace Biden next month — or, more accurately, that he will take himself out of the running, a position I staked out 21 months ago. This prospect seems more likely given Biden’s campaign collapse after last month’s debate and his failed attempts to appear lucid since.

I hope I am wrong because I think the Biden/Harris ticket will be the easiest to defeat. But if Demo delegates do pull a fast switch, that will alleviate constituent concern about Biden’s age, and Trump will have a steeper climb to victory.

Currently, Trump marginally leads Biden in the RCP average of polls — the only polling I consider of value. That has not yet shifted since the assassination attempt, but digging down to state polling, Trump looks stronger.

But the attack on Trump caused, at least for a moment, Biden and his cadre to reconsider their campaign centerpiece — the incessant claims that Trump is a “threat to democracy.”

That rhetorical theme is all Biden has to run on because his policy failures have been a disaster. However, his core constituents are too dullard to distinguish fact from the fictional lies Biden feeds them about Trump’s record — and too blinded by their chronic Trump Derangement Syndrome to care.

Just hours after the Trump attack, Biden pulled all his campaign advertising, including an ad released two days before the attack calling the former president “a dictator” and “a threat to freedom in the United States.”

A Biden campaign official noted: “This changes everything. We’re still assessing. Making the case against Trump, drawing that split screen, will get much harder.” In other words, Biden’s campaign of fear, hate, and division asserting Trump is the “enemy of democracy” hit a wall.

Biden briefly shifted to his “President Unity” facade in an effort to divert attention from his incendiary campaign rhetoric.

However, asked on Monday — the day the GOP convention convened and two days after the assassination attempt — if the Biden campaign message was going to change, his deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks said, “It hasn’t changed.”

To that end, resuming his divisive rhetoric this week, Biden declared: “How do you talk about the threat to democracy, which is real…? Do you just not say anything because it may incite somebody?” Biden insisted out of one side of his mouth, “Our politics have become too heated,” adding, “We all have a responsibility to lower the temperature.” Then out of the other side, he affirmed he will keep the heat on high: “Just because we must lower the temperature in our politics as it relates to violence doesn’t mean we should stop telling the truth.”

As I have noted, Trump’s campaign rhetoric is equally strident, but Trump is focused on Biden’s failed domestic and foreign policy record, not calling Biden a traitor to “democracy” and an enemy of the people. In fact, when Trump was shot, he was turning toward a panel listing the massive illegal immigration under Biden. Had he not turned toward that graphic, he would likely have suffered a fatal wound.

Fact is, Trump actually has an exceptional record to run on, despite the plethora of unmitigated lies Biden constantly regurgitates about the MAGA record — virtually none of which are subject to so-called “fact-checks” by his fawning Leftmedia publicists.

So, what does this have to do with a Joint Resolution 803 in Tennessee?

Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed a Resolution asking citizens to pray and fast for the month of July, a resolution in keeping with those of our founding era. Both chambers overwhelmingly approved the Resolution, which passed in the Senate 27-1 and in the House 82-6.

The Resolution affirms that “God, as Creator,” has the “authority to judge and bless” the states and our nation, acknowledging that our leaders must seek “the Creator’s favor,” much as President John Adams did in 1799. The Resolution quotes that proclamation:

[This day] be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to his righteous requisitions in time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would make us deeply sensible that “righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” [Proverbs 14:34]

This Resolution is in the mold of our nation’s the great founding resolutions, which you can read on our Historic Documents page. Its kinship to those resolutions affirms our devotion to American Liberty.

The Resolution continues:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we call upon all those who are physically able and spiritually inclined to do so to join in a thirty-day season of prayer and intermittent fasting as we begin a new fiscal year as a means of seeking God’s blessing and humbling ourselves to receive His Grace and Mercy, transforming ourselves, our communities, our State, and our Nation.

That stands in stark contrast to national declarations of June as the so-called “Pride Month,” though there is evidence that public support for the leftist gender-confusion agenda is showing signs of decline.

The Resolution notes specific issues that our nation faces, including surging violence committed by citizens and noncitizens, failure of public schools, the epidemic of drug and alcohol addiction, overdose deaths from fentanyl being muled across our southern border, human trafficking, children suffering from broken homes, and corruption of our federal government.

letter from the Resolution sponsors invites citizens to “read or have HJR 803 read in our church services; Examine our lives in light of God’s Word and confess of our sins; Acknowledge that we, as the Church, have failed to stand for the principles of God, ask for His Forgiveness and Mercy, and commit to stand firmly on those principles going forward; For those who are able, join in prayer and intermittent fasting as a means of demonstrating our desire for repentance.”

Contacting Bill Lee, our State Senator Bo Watson, and district Representative Patsy Hazelwood for comment on their support of the measure served as a reminder of why I take great pride in our family’s historic Tennessee ancestry, as well as the rise of good and righteous political leadership across our state — the “Great State of Tennessee” now being among the most conservative in the nation.

Gov. Lee, a man of strong faith, responded: “I’m proud to join the General Assembly in recognizing July as a month of prayer and fasting as we thank God for his many blessings, ask his forgiveness for our shortcomings, seek his wisdom in all circumstances, and ask for continued favor upon the great State of Tennessee.”

Sen. Watson responded: “The vast majority of Tennesseans believe in the power of prayer and supplication. HJR 803 states many of the spiritual values that we hold dear in our Great State and reaffirms our belief in a Creator and his presence in our daily lives as individuals, a state and a nation. As the psalmist writes in Psalms 22:28, ‘for dominion belongs to the Lord and He rules over the nations.’”

Rep. Hazelwood responded: “Ephesians 6:18 says, ‘And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people.’ Our state and country today are facing some very difficult issues, you might say evils. I think we have proven we cannot solve these challenging times or overcome these evils solely on our human efforts. Like John Adams, I believe we need to recognize that if America is to continue to be favored by the Lord, then we must reaffirm the foundation on which our nation was founded. We must turn to God, and this resolution calls on us, as God-fearing citizens, to do just that, as only He can heal our country.”

A friend and former legislator, Chris Clem, summed up the Resolution: “Like John Adams, we need to recognize that if America is to continue to be favored by the Lord, then America has to remember our foundation of faith. This resolution calls on us as God-fearing citizens to fear and honor God. Only God can heal our land. This resolution is designed to call on God — not voters.”

Amen.

Trump and Vance, take note!

A 1776 John Adams quote provides a good bookend: “I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.”

Through all the contemporary gloom, I still believe as Ronald Reagan did: “America’s best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our most glorious achievements are just ahead.”

Stand firm and fast, fellow Patriots!

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

Follow Mark Alexander on X/Twitter.

Comment | Share

‘Unalienable Rights of Man’ — A Civics Lesson

“Endowed by their Creator…”

MARK ALEXANDER

“God who gave us life gave us Liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.” –Thomas Jefferson (1781)

 

Just in time for what is now ubiquitously referred to as “Presidents’ Day,” CNN former celebrity “journalist” Chris Cuomo, a consummate Demo/MSM propagandist and brother of disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (both heirs to the Mario Cuomo Demo-dynasty), attempted to dispense with the Declaration of Independence and its historic enshrinement of American Liberty – in a mere 10 seconds.

Asserting that the origin of Rights enumerated in our Declaration and enshrined in our Constitution are endowed by men alone, Cuomo insisted, “Our rights do not come from God. That’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”

His views, which presuppose all leftist arguments, provide a case study of the endowment of Liberty by our Creator, and the leftists rejection of the assertion that endowment is innate and eternal for all mankind.

Cuomo’s knowledge of history and law is unduly limited by his Ivy League education, and unduly revisionist by his Democrat Party indoctrination. He might have a genuine perspective on history had he followed Mark Twain’s maxim: “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”

Allow me to offer Cuomo and his left-elitists, an elementary civics lesson in order to answer the question, “Who endows the Rights of Man, God (as ordained in natural law) or government (as ordained by man)?”

Cuomo asserted, “Our rights do not come from God,” and to insist otherwise is nothing more than a theological construct.

The first paragraph of our Declaration references “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,” which informs the words “endowed by their Creator” in the second paragraph.

To better understand what is meant by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” recall that our Declaration’s signers were not of one mind on matters of theology and doctrine. They were Christians, Deists and Agnostics, but they did, however, uniformly declare that the Rights of all people were, are and forever will be innate and unalienable, as established by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” (Notably, references to God and/or Creator are present in all 50 U.S. State Constitutions.)

This is not an article of “faith” as Cuomo assumes. It is the assertion that the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” while enumerated in our Declaration, is inherent and irrevocably applicable to all humans of every nation, religion, race and ethnicity, for all time.

It makes no difference what your concept of “Nature’s God” or our “Creator” is, or whether you even subscribe to any such conceptualization. You, and all people, are entitled to Liberty and all the rights it embodies. Those Rights not the gift of man or the declarations and constitutions written by men. As Founder Alexander Hamilton wrote, “The sacred Rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among parchments and musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” Indeed, the Declaration and Constitution were designed to protect those Rights, not award them.

Next, Cuomo asserted, “Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”

Now that is an absurdly malleable heap of leftist rhetoric. Cuomo has discounted the universal guidance of the Declaration, as if our Founders intended the Constitution as a substitute for it. Of course, it did no such thing, nor was that the intent of our Constitution’s delegation or ratification.

In that regard, I note that on the occasion of the Declaration’s 50th anniversary, James Madison (our Constitution’s principle author) wrote to Thomas Jefferson (our Declaration’s principle author), that the Constitution was subordinate to the Rights enshrined in our Declaration. Madison noted, “On the distinctive principles of the Government … of the U. States, the best guides are to be found in … The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States.”

In other words, although the Articles of Confederation and its successor, the U.S. Constitution, were the contractual agreements binding the several states into one union – E Pluribus Unum – the innate Rights of Man identified in the Declaration are the overarching act of that union, and would never be negotiable by way of “collective agreement and compromise.”

Nor are those Rights negotiable today or tomorrow.

However, Cuomo’s conflation of Rights and laws asserts that the Rights of Man are, at any time, subject to the whims of agreement and compromise. Again, one wonders what part of “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” he doesn’t understand. Perhaps it’s the “unalienable” part, which means “unable to be taken away or transferred.”

Not only do Cuomo and his leftist ilk refuse to acknowledge that the Rights of Man are non-negotiable, but they subscribe to the errant notion of a “living constitution” – one which is subject to executive and legislative encroachment, and particularly judicial amendment by diktat, instead of its prescribed method of amendment in Article V. This enables them to undermine our Constitution’s fundamental protections of Human Rights.

Though they take solemn oaths to “to Support and Defend” our Constitution, most politicians on the Left and too many on the Right ignore that obligation, and have trampled Constitutional Rule of Law with reckless abandon. The implications for Liberty are dire.

Cuomo’s assertions characterize all fundamental historical debates regarding Liberty and tyranny, between conservatives and liberals, or in contemporary political parlance, between Right and Left. Again, the core question being debated: Who endows the Rights of Man, our Creator (as ordained in natural law) or government (as ordained by man)?

The Left’s position was made plainly evident during the years of Barack Obama’s statist regime. He had a history of deliberately and repeatedly omitting the words “endowed by their Creator” when citing in open constituent forums the Declaration’s reference to “Rights.”

Contemporary leftist protagonists seek to substitute Liberty as ensured under the Rule of Law established by our Constitution, with the rule of men in that aforementioned “living constitution.” They do so because the former is predicated on the principle that Liberty is innately “endowed by our Creator,” while the latter asserts that government is the sole arbiter and grantor of Liberty.

Share

Ignorance of the true and eternal source of the Rights of Man is fertile ground for the Left’s assertion that government endows such Rights. It is also perilous ground, soaked with the blood of generations of American Patriots defending Liberty at home and around the world. Indeed, as Jefferson wrote, “The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Our Founders concluded our Declaration with this pledge to each other, and all who would follow: “With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Millions of fellow Patriots honor that pledge today, and stand ready to extend Liberty to the next generation.

Here endeth the lesson.

(To promote Liberty and recruit additional Patriots to our ranks, please distribute our Essential Liberty Pocket Guide to your family, friends and colleagues.)

Follow Mark Alexander on Twitter

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

Anti-2A NY Court Convicts Gunsmith

A man who legally bought and built firearms is railroaded by a New York judge who is clearly opposed to Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

by THOMAS GALLATIN

For Dexter Taylor, it was an intriguing hobby. For the deep-blue state of New York, it was a criminal enterprise. And now Taylor is sitting in Rikers Island awaiting sentencing of anywhere from 10 to 18 years in prison.

And what exactly is Taylor guilty of? In short, pursuing his love of building things, specifically firearms.

During the COVID-19 lockdowns, Taylor — a black man, a software engineer, and a Brooklyn resident — discovered the world of gunsmithing. According to his lawyer, Vinoo Varghese, “He ended up building, I believe it was eight pistols and five or six rifles, AR-style rifles, and then eight or nine Glock pistols that he built.”

Taylor explained: “I found out that you can actually legally buy a receiver, and you can machine that receiver to completion, and you buy your parts, and you put them together, and you’ve got a pistol or a rifle. And once I saw that, I was hooked. I was like, ‘This is the coolest thing ever. This is the most cool thing you could possibly do in your machine shop.’”

As far as Taylor knew, his hobby was completely legal, right up until a joint ATF/NYPD SWAT team raided his home and arrested him. He was charged in April 2022 with constructing so-called “ghost guns,” which is the Left’s scaremongering term for homemade firearms.

A 37-count indictment raised against Taylor included multiple criminal firearms possessions that, according to Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez, amounted to “a massive arsenal of homemade ghost guns that are as real and dangerous as traditional firearms.” While the 52-year-old Taylor had no criminal record and was not charged with any violent crime — he never even fired any of the firearms he constructed — for anti-Second Amendment New York, Taylor’s firearms were the crime.

Furthermore, Taylor stated prior to his trial: “Not only did I not intend to transfer or sell them or anything else, but the state of New York should know this because of course they seized my driver, my computer, my regular desktop, my work laptop, they seized my phone, they seized my credit cards, everything. So they know that I wasn’t out there talking about guns. I wasn’t out there advertising guns. I wasn’t out there talking about them on social media, and I certainly wasn’t talking or thinking about transferring weapons.”

However, a jury found him guilty. But it hardly sounds like Taylor got a fair shake, as Judge Abena Darkeh explicitly told his lawyer he was not allowed to even mention Second Amendment rights in Taylor’s defense. Varghese explained: “She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue [the] Second Amendment. This is New York.’”

On top of that, Judge Darkeh forbade Varghese from arguing before the jury that there was no crime. As Varghese tells it: “I actually argued that jury nullification is allowed because there is some law from the high court of New York that talks about lawyers who made jury nullification arguments. And basically, they said that judges shouldn’t encourage it, but they can’t prevent it. I actually made a pitch directly to Judge Darkeh to allow me to argue during nullification. She, of course, rejected that.” He added, “She basically said, ‘You must vote guilty’ without saying ‘you must vote guilty.’”

Apparently, Judge Darkeh is opposed to the Second Amendment and wants to use Taylor as an example to others who might also enjoy gunsmithing. This is the epitome of viewing the Second Amendment as a secondary right at best or a license to convict at worst.

Despite the verdict, both Taylor and Varghese promised this fight is far from over. They plan to appeal the conviction and, as Varghese believes, “We have a shot at winning in federal court.” Indeed.

Thank You Patriot Post