The fourth day of July is known as Independence Day in the United States because the Declaration of Independence was ratified on the fourth day of July, 1776. As such, I thought it might be interesting to discuss a few of the reasons why a group of people were willing to risk their lives as well as those of their friends and family for something called “independence.”

What is independence? What did it mean in 1776? What does it mean today? Why did those people in 1776 seek independence? Are there contemporary equivalents to those reasons?

Conveniently, the Declaration of Independence includes a list of reasons why the 13 colonies sought independence from Great Britain, and includes a written attempt to capture the essence and importance of the idea of independence.

Independence can of course be summarized as an opposite of dependence. Effectively, the founders of the United States of America were declaring that the people within the founding States no longer desired to be dependent upon Great Britain and were willing to accept the risks guaranteed by leaving the British empire, including war with the empire itself. The benefits accorded to subjects of the Crown were numerous: military protection, secure trade routes, raw materials, equipment. But the burdens imposed by the Crown were also numerous, and had become destructive to the goals people brave enough to face the unknown, that is, the freedom to find a way to try to be happy.

Indeed, the second paragraph of the Declaration includes language enumerating “the Pursuit of Happiness” as one of three “unalienable Rights” for which “Governments are instituted” in order to “secure these Rights”. It becomes apparent that the primal and the primary motivation leading to the establishment of the United States of America was the freedom, the independence, to determine your own destiny, to find happiness in your own way, unmoored from assistance but also unburdened by the costs of that assistance.

In the language of the day, how did the founders characterize these burdens and costs? How did they convey the weight of these burdens in such a way as to justify provoking the world’s most powerful nation? For an attempt at gathering those answers we can look to the first three “Injuries” listed in the Declaration:

“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.”

“He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.”

“He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.”

The word “He” in the above quotes specifically indicates King George III but It is reasonable to expand that scope to include the concept of monarchy in general. It is interesting that none of these three quotes seem severe by modern standards. One might even say they are benign, yet they sparked one of the most significant rebellions of the age. Why? Because the founders understood the importance of order through law, but also that order can only be sustained so long as the law is subject to those subjected to it. In the years leading up to the American revolution, the British monarchy had grown increasingly distant from those principles. The Declaration is full of specific complaints regarding the flippant and tyrannical behavior of the monarchy, including the three extracted above.

If a basic refusal to adhere to standards for responsive and responsible law was seen as justification for war, is there a modern analog? I think we can see a similar dynamic today represented in the conflict between the judiciary and the legislature, as well as the bureaucracy in conflict with the will of the people. Consider the reactions to the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding Roe v Wade and West Virginia v EPA.

The former (Roe v Wade) is a return of lawmaking power to the states rather than the federal legislature. In other words, it is a reassertion of the idea that law is best made by those most responsive to the people subject to that law.

The latter (West Virginia v EPA) is a rejection of the idea that an agency created by law has unlimited authority to craft and enforce rules with the same weight and punitive reach as law. This is another reassertion of the idea that the creators of law should be subject to the influence of the people affected by that law.

Both of these Supreme Court decisions were positive if viewed through the lens of the Declaration, but the reactions are telling. Those with smiling faces and extended thumbs understand that the human family is incredibly diverse and should be represented by laws just as diverse.

Those with gnashing teeth and hammering fists seem to believe that law, and the power cascading from law, should be instituted by whatever means required as long as that law complies with their dogma. King George would be proud.

Are we headed for another Declaration? Another Revolution? Only time knows, but the mechanisms that primed the creation of America, moving the source of law as far as possible from the subjects of that law, are alive and well. We must be vigilant.

On this 20th anniversary of 9/11, I feel compelled to explain why America was attacked then, and why it is still being attacked today.

While the United States of America is unique structurally – a constitution that establishes the individual as superior to the state – America is not unique historically, at least in terms of why it was established. Most critics of America claim that it is simply an artifact of imperialism, that as the evil white Europeans explored the world in the interest of expanding their power and exploiting resources, America was discovered and developed into just another extension of that lust for power and wealth. This view is ignorant. Ignorant of the fact that for all of human history most of us have been subjected to the control and whims of a powerful few, a trend that continues today, and ignorant of the fact that for all of human history most of us have sought to escape the control of the powerful, many of us by risking everything to leave our current home and seek out a refuge, a place where we could simply live and let live, a place for freedom.

It just so happens that America is the last place to run.

Oh sure, America is a big place, and we could see some states secede, or we could simply buy some property and hope that no one ever notices us on our 5 acres. The world is a big place too. We could move to an island the Caribbean, or a hut in the Andes mountains. That would be yet another continuation of the ancient pattern of escaping the oppression and misery that inevitably follow the imposition of power. But in terms of millions of people migrating away from America and seeking refuge elsewhere? Not going to happen.

Consider the direction of refugee migration right now. Where are they going? America. Why? Because America is the only place for them to go. America is the last bastion of freedom, the last frontier, terrestrially anyway. If it was easy to sail across the Atlantic Ocean and arrive on the east coast of the United States, do you think anyone would be escaping to France or the United Kingdom? The ultimate escape is America. And that is why America is the hill.

For all of human history there has been somewhere else to go, some other land to find, some other place to escape to. That is gone. There is no other land to find or escape to be had.

That is why America was attacked in 2001, and why it is still under attack today. America represents the final escape from the tyranny of the mob, from the corruption of power, from the despotism of those who believe they have the right to rule. True to form, those who seek to rule over others seek to destroy freedom, which means they also seek to destroy any place of refuge for those who wish to be free. That place is America.

There is an old adage colloquially known as the hill to die on. It is generally understood as a point in a battle or war where one side’s combatants are nearing defeat and there is no option for retreat. In that moment there is an acceptance that death is likely and fighting is the only choice, so from a position of high ground, the final battle ensues. That is America today. The forces of deceit and power seem overwhelming. Freedom is on its heels. There are no more lands to discover, no ships to sail, no rockets to launch. This moment was not chosen, it was not welcomed, it was not planned for. But we are here.

America is the hill.

A democracy only works as long as those participating believe their vote matters. Right now, a substantial number of United States citizens do not believe. They do not believe that their votes are faithfully recorded and jealously protected. They do not have faith in the electoral process.

The Democratic party of the United States of America has a choice to make. They can restore faith in the democratic process in the United States, or they can ignore the voices of those who believe they are disenfranchised and through that ignorance destroy our democracy. The choice really is that dramatic. Will the United States Democratic party choose to save democracy in the United States, or will they sacrifice democracy on the altar of power?

Not to say the Democrats will lose power if they choose to save democracy. But they will risk power if they take the actions necessary to restore faith in the electoral process.

To save democracy, all 2020 United States federal elections need to be completely audited. Voting machines, mail-in ballots, hand counts, signature validation, everything on the table and audited in plain sight. The process and results should be completely public. Anyone who wants to observe the process, or parse through the results should have full and complete access.

Only then will confidence in United States elections be restored.

Will the Democrats do this?

They risk losing it all: The House; The Senate; even the Presidency.

But if this audit is not performed, they risk democracy itself. The process of democracy will be corrupted. The actual concept of a vote as a voice will be tainted – forever.

What is the more profound choice? The more noble path? I would argue that restoring faith in democracy is far more important than winning a particular election. Do Democrats?

In that spirit I issue a challenge to the Democratic Party of the United States of America:

No new business until faith in our democratic process is restored.

Only then can you presume normal governmental business.

If this is done, the Democratic party will have demonstrated that democracy is more important than power. The Democratic party will have legitimate claim to their namesake.

If this is not done, the Democratic party will have proven that their democratic banner is only a facade, a fakery meant to distract from their real namesake – power.

It has been four years since I’ve posted anything on this blog. This 2020 presidential election has drawn me out of hibernation – or perhaps blindness.

This election is now beyond a contest for a presidency. It is a challenge to the very concept of elections. It is an affront to the idea of democracy.

What is democracy without an electorate that trusts elections?

It is a sham. A farce. An empty shell. Tyranny hiding behind the illusion of moral governance.

I no longer care deeply who wins this election. Unless the evidence of fraud and manipulation is addressed, it will be a long time before we trust democracy. And that is a bad thing, regardless of political leanings, unless you lean toward tyranny, anarchy, oppression, misery.

President Trump is not throwing a tantrum over a looming defeat. We have seen the evidence of fraud. We have seen the poll workers denied access to polling places. We have seen the ballots in the trash.

There comes a time for choosing.

The choice this time is democracy or presidency.

The clock is ticking.

This morning I ran in a Thanksgiving “fun run” in one of the more “liberal” cities in the United States. For a moment, I thought about wearing my Make America Great Again cap, but didn’t, for fear of being attacked, if only verbally. Yes, I know, coward.

I’m no Trump sycophant, but I am glad that he won, and, if I’m honest, the reason I would have worn the hat would have been to stir the pot, so I suppose I’m glad that I didn’t. That issue to the side, I enjoyed the run, and found pleasure in the realization that this nation isn’t really as divided as we might think it is, at least for a moment, as we run together on a nice crisp morning.

So I am thankful now after seven long years* to be able to enjoy a Thanksgiving without fretting over a seemingly irredeemable future.

[* Seven years because I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt until the passage of Obamacare in spite of such tremendous outcry.]

I am thankful now to have hope, although that comes with full awareness that the battle will be uphill, against large odds, probably spanning beyond my lifetime.

I do not think Donald Trump is the lightbringer canadianviagras.net. But I do think that the American people reached out and grabbed the country’s belt just as we tilted off the cliff.

Now comes the difficult work of pulling America back onto solid ground, and convincing her why walking in a different direction might be the more prudent thing to do.

So I would like to say thank you, for being able to finally again have a Happy Thanksgiving and open this holiday season with joy. Cautious joy, but joy nevertheless.

Happy Thanksgiving.

On Friday May 13th the Obama administration threw down the gauntlet.

Through a Department of Education edict, “transgender students must be allowed to participate in such activities and access such facilities consistent with their gender identity.” If a school refuses to comply, the federal government may sue and/or withhold funding. Yes ladies and gentlemen (yes, those are the only two sexes (“genders”), and yes, sex is a permanent trait), the Obama administration is extorting the children of America to force compliance with its “civil” rights agenda.

This move by the administration had interesting timing for me personally because I had recently listened to an episode of Louder with Crowder in which Steven had a discussion with Walt Heyer, a transgender man who had undergone sex “reassignment” surgery then later returned to embracing his male sexuality. During the discussion, Walt exposed a shocking statistic: 41% of transgender people in the United States attempt suicide. Apparently this is regardless of environment, support system, hormones, surgery – 4 out of every 10 transgender people in the United States attempt suicide.

Put aside for a moment the concept of being “born this way” or whether or not it is possible to be born into a body you don’t belong in. Put aside the discussions about “dignity”, or “equality”, or transgender rights.

This administration has mandated that at a vulnerable age, people who are confused about their gender, people who are struggling with their identity, people who are trying to figure out their life, must be treated as the gender of their choosing. The same administration frequently uses the logic “if it only saves one life” in order to justify gun control. Why then would they mandate a policy that places young people at a higher risk of suicide?

Why?

Power.

The left has spent decades amassing power under the guise of “anti-discrimination” and they will stop at nothing to protect that power, including the sacrifice of children.

If the progressive left allows ANY discrimination to be legitimized, what is to stop ALL discrimination from becoming legitimate? Whether or not that would ever happen is irrelevant. The left is not willing to take that chance. It would mean the risk of losing their power – losing control of the cultural meat cleaver they use to beat us into submission.

To the end of preservation of power, no means is unjustified, including the use of schools to inculcate a child into walking a path with a 41% chance of ending in suicide.

A suicidal mandate indeed.

Many people, ranging from well-known political pundits to just your typical “man on the street,” are wondering how someone like Donald Trump can have so much traction in the campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential candidacy. I’ve wondered the same thing myself. For me, some of what he says resonates, but there are too many unforced errors in his words, too much celebrity. It doesn’t really feel presidential.

Then I look at the headlines…

Empty seat at the state of the union as a political prop for gun control. How about an empty seat for those shot and killed in the gun control utopia of Chicago? A Syrian refugee at the state of the union while we have refugees raping, stealing, and dealing drugs en masse in Europe, the harbinger of mass immigration from the Middle East. The country is safe even though we have no idea who is coming into the country. Taxes. Debt. People out of the workforce. Microaggressions. Safe spaces. HIllary. Bernie.

And it hits me…

The Trump phenomenon is a perfectly normal response to the lunacy emanating from the ivory towers. Why not have a hot headed celebrity as a presidential candidate when the opposition is the Wizard of Oz? Nothing to see here, just don’t look behind the curtain!

Really?

Then maybe we need someone who will tear down the curtain, set it on fire, kick the Wizard out into the street (without his coat), demolish the ivory towers, and relocate their former occupants to the ghettos they created.

Enough with sophomoric, feel good garbage levitra generika indien. Give us hard, cold facts. Make us stew in it. Slap us in the face with the consequences of ignorance borne of politicians perfectly happy to dumb down and placate the masses so long as they continue to enjoy lobster lunches and dinner parties with the upper crust.

Reality will eventually bite. Whether it brakes through flesh and shatters bone is a question of how long it has been ignored.

And we’ve been ignoring reality for a long, long time.

As is unfortunately becoming commonplace, we once again have to suffer through a holiday season tainted by the politicization of what should be a time of warmth, remembrance, and joy. Thanksgiving Day was littered with posts, memes, and editorials about Pilgrims = Refugees and National Genocide Day. Leave it to the left to try to drown everyone in their misery.

If there is any time of year when we should put down our political swords and shields and do our best to get along, it is the Thanksgiving > Christmas > New Years holidays. Yet instead of bellies full of turkey and stuffing we got emails full of Thanksgiving table talking points for making sure your relatives come to terms with how awesome Democrats are.

Why is it that the political right embraces the holidays while the left reacts with indifference or even hostility? Because the right needs a periodic escape from reality and the left does not, because the left doesn’t ever deal with reality.

The left believes it is morally superior because it *feels* that way. The left is an emotional position. If it feels right or good it must be. The right is a logical position. On the right, emotions are tempered by logic. This is why the left is able to characterize the right as callous and uncaring.

In truth, the right is far more emotional than the left, because the right has to deal with the tragedy of realizing that you just can’t help everyone. However much you desire for all to be happy, it cannot be made to be so. The left never faces this. To do so would shatter the illusion of goodness viagra generika kaufen schweiz.

The right is always aware of the abyss. That is why we feel such joy when we are able to achieve something good. Because we know the bad.

This is why we need the holidays to be happy. Why we decorate our homes with garland and lights, listen to 70 year old Christmas music, wear Santa hats. Because once these few weeks are over we will pick up our swords and shields, turn our backs to the abyss and fight the good fight. The holidays is our respite, our time to recharge, to reflect.

Happy Holidays everyone.

The ridiculous gnashing of teeth over passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana need to be quelled, so here it is:

If we are not free to discriminate, we are not free.

You may not like it if someone refuses to bake a cake for a homosexual ceremony, but that does not give you the right to force them to do so.

You and I would agree if you said it was despicable that a crotchety old white man refused to serve a hamburger to another man because he had dark skin, but you and I would not agree if you insisted that the crotchety old white man be made to serve the hamburger.

Discrimination should not be celebrated…

…but it should not be criminalized.

I realize this is a monumental concept to absorb, but we must address it – right here, right now – lest we ultimately cede our freedom, our ability to think and act of our own accord.

Discrimination is a completely natural behavior. We discriminate when we choose who to date, who to marry, where to go to school, where to work, where to eat. Discrimination is innate. It is instinctive. To criminalize discrimination is not to eliminate it, it is to allow one person’s opinion as to what is “ok” to be enforced as superior to another person’s “ok.”

If we criminalize discrimination, and we have, we will have given government the ability to look into our most private, personal decisions and punish us for those decisions deemed “bad” by some panel, or special interest. Government will have the power to tell us who we can hire, who we can fire, who we must serve, what we must allow. Anti-discrimination will be a blanket motive for insidious and totalitarian government overreach.

People have said the Indiana law is dangerous. And how would you describe a government able to tell you who you must work for.

And that’s exactly what this is. The decision as to whether or not we can decide whom we want to serve with our labor. Who we choose to bake a cake for.

If discrimination is illegal, we can be forced to provide our labor to someone we would rather not. We no longer have free will. We are not free.

This “conversation” regarding Indiana’s RFRA needs to launch a campaign to carry that concept to it’s farthest end, that is, the complete reversal of anti-discrimination law, with one exception, discrimination in government.

Why?

Because government is the only entity on the face of the earth with intrinsic monopoly power. Imagine a government that refused to give you a driver’s license because of the color of your skin. Or that taxed you at a higher rate because of your higher income – wait – you mean our government is DISCRIMINATING?! I guess some discrimination is good after all.

This issue is not fuzzy or malleable. It is absolute.

If we are not free to discriminate, we are not free.

So, Obama used his moment at this year’s National Prayer Breakfast to point out that although ISIS “carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism,” it’s important for us to remember that people have used the teachings of Jesus to justify acts of barbarism, such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, slavery, and Jim Crow [laws].

The Crusades?

The CRUSADES?!

Anyone with a modicum of intellectual curiosity knows that the Crusades was a reaction to medieval barbarism. It was a retaliation. A rejection. As a matter of fact, Mr. Obama, the Crusades were launched to fight the medieval version of ISIS.

But wait a minute.

I thought this wasn’t about religion? Isn’t it you and your administration that are bending over backwards to disassociate Islam from ISIS? Then why choose to invoke Christianity at all? Isn’t religion irrelevant to current conditions in the Middle East?

I am floored by the relativism. I have actually witnessed a person condemn the Crusades while the world is witnessing the barbarism that motivated them. What kind of fool…

Never mind. I forgot who we’re talking about here generisk levitra.