Our founding fathers were very concerned over the lack of public virtue in the colonies prior to the Revolution. Without public virtue, we were not “good” enough to be able to handle or set up our own government. Over a period of three years, the people came to realize that they had to put aside their petty differences and come together for the greater good. This greater good gave their descendents the very freedom that we are in danger of losing today. What is the measure of our public virtue today? Read more »

This information provided by The Federal Observer, http://www.federalobserver.com

Walter Mitty’s Second Amendment

By Jeff Snyder

Once upon a time, there was a people who inhabited a majestic land under an all-powerful government. Now this government had the resources to control practically every aspect of human existence; hundreds of thousands of “public servants” could access the most personal details of every citizen’s life because everyone was issued a number at birth with which the government would track him throughout his life. No one could even work in gainful employment without this number.

True, the government left certain domains of individual action largely free, particularly matters concerning speech and sex. These activities posed no real threat to the state. When not used to entertain and divert, the power of speech was used principally to clamor for more or better goods from the state, or for “reforms” to make the state work “better,” thereby entrenching the people’s dependency. And insofar as sex was concerned, well, the people’s behavior in this area also really had no effect on the scope of state power. In fact, the rulers noted that people’s preoccupation with matters of sexual morality — whether premarital, teenage pregnancy, adultery, divorce, homosexuality or general “who’s zooming who” — diverted the people’s attention from the fact that they were, for economic and all other intents and purposes, slaves.

Slaves, though, who labored under the illusion that they were free. The people were a simple lot, politically speaking, and readily mistook the ability to give free reign to their appetites as the essence of “personal freedom.”

In that fruitful land, the state took about 50 percent of everything the people earned through numerous forms of taxation, up from about 25 percent only a generation earlier. However, this boastful people, who believed themselves to be the freest on earth, retained the right to keep and bear arms. Tens of millions of them possessed firearms just in case their government became tyrannical and enslaved them.

In that land, an astronomical number of regulations, filling more than 96,000 pages in the government’s “code of regulations,” were promulgated by persons who were not elected by the people. The regulators often developed close relationships with the businesses they regulated, and work in “agencies” that had the power both to make law — and to enforce it.

The agencies were not established by the government’s constitution, and their existence violated that instrument’s principle of separation of powers. Yet the people retained the right to keep and bear arms. Just in case their government, some day, ceased to be a “government of the people.”

In that land, the constitution contemplated that the people would be governed by two separate levels of government — “national” and “local.” Matters that concerned the people most intimately — health, education, welfare, crime, and the environment — were to be left almost exclusively to the local level, so that those who made and enforced the laws lived close to the people who were subject to the laws, and felt their effects.

So that different people who had different ideas about such things would not be subject to a “one size fits all” standard that would apply if the national government dealt with such matters. Competition among different localities for people, who could move freely from one place to another, would act as a reality check on the passage of unnecessary or unwise laws.

But in a time of great crisis called the Great Economic Downturn, the people and their leaders clamored for “national solutions to national problems,” and the constitution was “interpreted” by the Majestic Court to permit the national government to pass laws regulating practically everything that has been reserved for the localities.

Now the people had the pleasure of being governed by not one, but two beneficient governments with two sets of laws regulating the same things. Now the people could be prosecuted by not one, but two governments for the same activities and conduct. Still this fiercely independent people retained the right to keep and bear arms. Just in case their government, some day, no longer secured the blessings of liberty to themselves or their posterity.

In that fair land, property owners could be held liable under the nation’s environmental legislation for the cleanup costs associated with toxic chemicals, even if the owners had not caused the problem.

Another set of laws provided for asset forfeiture and permitted government agencies to confiscate property without first establishing guilt.

Yet the people retained the right to keep and bear arms. Just in case their government denied them due process by holding them liable for things that were not their fault. (The Majestic Court had long ago determined that “due process” did not prevent government from imposing liability on people who were not at fault. “Due process”, it turned out, meant little more than that a law had been passed in accordance with established procedures. You know, it was actually voted on, passed by a majority and signed by the president. If it met those standards, it didn’t much matter what the law actually did.)

Oh well, the people had little real cause to worry. After all, those laws hardly ever affected anyone that they knew. Certainly not the people who mattered most of all: the country’s favorite celebrities and sports teams, who so occupied the people’s attention. And how bad could it be if it had not yet been the subject of a Movie of the Week, telling them what to think and how to feel about it?

In that wide open land, the police often established roadblocks to check that the people’s papers were in order. The police — armed agents of the rulers — used these occasions to ask the occupants whether they were carrying weapons or drugs. Sometimes the police would ask to search the vehicles, and the occupants — not knowing whether they could say no and wanting to prove that they were good guys by cooperating — would permit it.

The Majestic Court had pronounced these roadblocks and searches lawful on the novel theory, unkown to the country’s Founding Forebears, that so long as the police were doing this to everyone equally, it didn’t violate anyone’s rights in particular.

The roadblocks sometimes caused annoying delays, but these lovers of the open road took it in stride. After all, they retained their right to keep and bear arms. Just in case their government, some day, engaged in unreasonable searches and seizures. In that bustling land, the choice of how to develop property was heavily regulated by local governments that often demanded fees or concessions for the privilege. That is, when the development was not prohibited outright by national “moistland” regulations that had no foundation in statutory or constitutional law.

Even home owners often required permission to simply build an addition to their homes, or to erect a tool shed on their so-called private property. And so it seemed that “private property” became, not a system protecting individual liberty, but a system which, while providing the illusion of ownership, actually just allocated and assigned government-mandated burdens and responsibilities.

Still, this mightily productive people believed themselves to live in the most capitalistic society on earth, a society dedicated to the protection of private property. And so they retained the right to keep and bear arms. Just in case their government ever sought to deprive them of their property without just compensation.

Besides, the people had little cause for alarm. Far from worrying about government control of their property, the more immediate problem was: what to buy next?

The people were a simple lot, politically speaking, and readily mistook the ability to acquire and endless assortment of consumer goods as the essence of personal freedom.

The enlightened rulers of this great land did not seek to deprive the people of their right to bear arms. Unlike tyrants of the past, they had learned that it was not necessary to disarm the masses. The people proved time and time again thaty they were willing accomplices to the ever expanding authority of the government, enslaved by their own desire for safety, security and welfare.

The people could have their guns. What did the rulers care? They already possessed the complete obedience that they required.

In fact, in their more Machiavellian moments, the rulers could be heard to admit that permitting the people the right to keep and bear arms was a marvelous tool of social control, for it provided the people with the illusion of freedom.

The people, among the most highly regulated on earth, told themselves that they were free because they retained the means of revolt. Just in case things ever got really bad. No one, however, seemed to have too clear an idea what “really bad” really meant. The people accepted the fact that their government no longer even remotely resembled the plan set forth in their original constitution. And the people’s values no longer remotely resembled those of their Founding Forebears. The people, in their naiveté, really believed that the means of revolt were to be found in a piece of inanimate metal! Really it was laughable. And pathetic.

No, the rulers knew that the people could safely be trusted with arms. The government educated their children, provided for their retirement in old age, bequeathed assistance if they lost their jobs, mandated that they receive health care, and even doled out food and shelter if they were poor.

The government was the very air the people breathed from childhood to the grave. Few could imagine, let alone desire, any other kind of world.

To the extent that the people paid any attention to their system of government, the great mass spent their days simply clamoring for more or better “programs”, more “rational” regulations, in short, more of the same. The only thing that really upset them was waste, fraud, or abuse of the existing programs. Such shenanigans brought forth vehement protests demanding that the government provide their services more efficiently, dammit! The nation’s stirring national anthem, adopted long ago by men who fought for their liberty, ended by posng a question, in hopes of keeping the spirit of liberty alive. Did the flag still fly, it asked, over the land of the free?

Unfortunately, few considered that the answer to that question might really be no, for they had long since lost an understanding of what freedom really is.

No, in this land “freedom” had become something dark, frightening, and dangerous. The people lived in mortal terror that somewhere, sometime, some individual might make a decision or embark upon a course of action that was not first approved by some government official.

Security was far more preferable. How could anyone be truly free if he were not first safe and protected?

Now we must say goodbye to this fair country whose government toiled tirelessly to create the safety, fairness and luxury that all demanded, and that everyone knew could be created by passing just the right laws. Through it all, the people vigorously safeguarded their tradition of firearms ownership.

But they never knew — and never learned — that preserving a tradition and a way of life is not the same as preserving liberty. And they never knew — and never learned — that it’s not about guns.

American Handgunner, Sep/Oct 1997, reprinted without permission

The following two videos of my speech at the Restore the Constitution Rally on August 14th had two underlying themes: we need to unite to be effective and we have to restore public virtue. Without a common goal, our future will become one where our actions will become focused on one common enemy. Our forefathers warned us about the dangers that a republic will face in order to destroy it. I believe that our Constitution Republic has been overthrown and that most of the country is in denial. Of course that is only my opinion: only you can decide if you will stand up now or cower later.

The speech’s theme was based on Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson’s Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms. All of my resources will now be devoted to one cause: I will do anything that will restore freedom to our children. If anyone has a better goal to unite us, let me know. Read more »

The following video by Dr. BJ Lawson again documents how the 4th District of North Carolina is represented by one of the top level politicians who is destroying our country. Mr. Price’s sellout for health care, SEIU, Acorn and now immigration are only some of the examples of how he has no regard for the future of our children or the Constitution. I fully support and endorse Dr. Lawson in the upcoming election for the 4th district. Dr. Lawson has the courage to defend our laws and Constitution in front of 1500 people supporting illegal legislation. Imagine what he will do against approximately 260 Democrat representatives in the House.

David DeGerolamo Read more »

Bubba McDowell is well known for his blog “What Bubba Knows“. His rousing speech at the Restore the Constitution Rally in Greensboro, NC on August 14th is shown below. Read more »

The following quote from Samuel Adams should be considered in its entirety:

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Currently, the American people “love wealth more than liberty”. Take the passage of the extension of the unemployment benefits to 2-1/2 years yesterday. Let’s call this “benefit” what it really is: welfare payments to stay dependent on the state. According to www.usdebtclock.org, the current real unemployment rate is 18.17%. What would happen if a large portion of these people were not being paid off? Welfare vs. Liberty? At this point in time, we the people are choosing welfare over liberty.

We do not understand liberty and freedom as our founding fathers did. George Washington would not accept any limitation on his freedom since this was an affront to our God given rights. We talk about the loss of some of our freedoms as acceptable only because we have been indoctrinated to accept dependence in steps. Let’s talk about the section of the Declaration of Independence which states:

“we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”

I challenge everyone reading this article to think how this applies to you. The phrasing in our society today is:

“we mutually pledge to each other their lives and their fortunes”

Sacred Honor is not part of our culture anymore since it is not politically correct to refer to our religious foundation. When was the last time you voted for a politician because you felt he or she had honor?

The first thing to understand about freedom is that the concept is not plural. If we talk about freedoms, we already are willing to give up some of our “freedom”. Freedom is not divisible into smaller parts that can be traded or sold. Consider this quote from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe:

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.“

Our politicians and ruling class have mastered this principle. We have been led to the trough of slavery through legislation designed to “protect” us and our rights. The list includes TARP, stimulus legislation, health care legislation, finance reform legislation and limiting our right to free speech by implementing a kill switch on the Internet.

Are you confident that you understand the concepts of Liberty and Freedom? Lord Halifax put it succinctly:

“If none were to have Liberty but those who understand what it is, there would not be many freed Men in the world.”

So where does this leave us? Consider this quote from Alexis de Tocqueville:

“The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”

So I ask not your counsel nor your arms as you follow a path to slavery. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

David DeGerolamo

The following is an email sent to NCFreedom concerning the Islamic religion/culture as part of our country’s story. This article is only presented to show that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian religious concepts. Why our president is rewriting history is left up to the reader.

President Obama, during his Cairo speech, said: “I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America ‘s story.”

Dear Mr. Obama:

Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed? Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.

Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.

Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution?

Declaration of Independence ?

Bill of Rights?

Didn’t think so.

Did Muslims fight for this country’s freedom from England? No.

Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America? No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery. Your own half brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refers to black Muslims as “pug nosed slaves.” Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family’s “rich Islamic heritage,” doesn’t it Mr. Obama?

Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not present.

There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.

Where were Muslims during this country’s Woman’s Suffrage era? Again, not present. In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the ‘hajib’ or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband. Yep, the Muslims are all for woman’s rights, aren’t they?

Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi’s in killing Jews.

Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001? If they weren’t flying planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East. No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day. Strangely, the very “moderate” Muslims who’s asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.

And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the “rich heritage” Muslims have here in America.

Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates. They were Muslim.

And now we can add November 5, 2009 – the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That, Mr. Obama is the “Muslim heritage” in America.

N.C. officials insist money spent on developing state standards not wasted

By Jim Stegall

June 30, 2010

RALEIGH — North Carolina has become one of the first states officially to adopt a newly developed set of national curriculum standards for use in the state’s public schools. When fully implemented, the “Common Core State Standards” will guide the development of everything from teachers’ lesson plans to final exams, and make it easier to compare North Carolina’s progress in education to that of other states.

Critics warn that the move may cost state officials the ability to determine what North Carolina school children should be learning. They also question the wisdom of jumping onto the national standards bandwagon in the middle of a five-year state initiative to develop new curriculum standards of our own.

That project, known as the Accountability and Curriculum Reform Effort, grew out of a 2008 study recommending a complete overhaul of the standard course of study for students in kindergarten through 12th grade. State education officials had completed work on the new standards for mathematics, and were putting the finishing touches on those for English language arts, when the U.S. Department of Education announced that states using the common core standards would receive extra points in the Race to the Top education reform initiative.

Although the ACRE project is described on the Department of Public Instruction’s website as “the most important and significant work of the State Board of Education and Department of Public Instruction in a generation,” education officials warmed quickly to the idea of adopting the national standards instead. DPI could not say how much has been spent on the ACRE project to date.

DPI’s Chief Academic Officer Rebecca Garland credits the federal reform initiative with helping spur action on national standards. Noting that states had been considering the idea of developing a common set of curriculum standards for years, she said, “It’s not like Race to the Top initiated the conversation, but it may have caused folks across the states to say it’s time to stop talking and start doing.”

In an interview, Garland rejected the idea that the two years DPI spent working on new mathematics and English language arts via the ACRE project were wasted. She pointed out that the new common core standards for both subjects are very similar to those developed by ACRE. In the case of the math standards, she said that one of the key contributors to the national standards project (a North Carolina State University mathematics professor) was also working with DPI’s ACRE project.

“The English language arts [national standards] were actually being developed at the same time that our standards were,” Garland said, “so we had our groups looking at what they thought were important.”

But not all educators are comfortable with the move to national standards. Some think that “national standards” could eventually spell “national control.”

“I don’t think it’s the right way to go,” says John Locke Foundation director of education studies Terry Stoops. He cited the recent controversy over the State Board of Education’s attempt to adopt new social studies standards — which some felt slighted U.S. history. “There’s always a potential for ideological manipulation on a national scale,” Stoops said, “and that’s a concern.”

Garland says that should not be a problem. “A state can sign on or a state can pull out if anything goes in a direction that makes them uncomfortable.” She said that the standards are flexible enough to allow states to add things that they feel are particularly important to them.

DPI plans to start using the new standards in the 2012-13 school year. But before that can happen, new tests aligned with the curriculum will have to be designed. Garland says that those tests will be designed by a consortium of states to be chosen by the U.S. Department of Education later this year. “In essence it will give us a national assessment, but it will be an assessment controlled by the states,” she said. “None of us are interested in a federally mandated assessment.”

Stoops says the assessments bear close watching. “It’s no good to have great standards and horrible assessments,” he said. Referring to North Carolina’s history of problems with standardized testing, he said, “We have seen what poor assessments can do.”

Jim Stegall is a contributor to Carolina Journal

Reprinted from BJ Lawson’s campaign site:

An interesting article in Politico today gives us a taste of things to come, as Congress abdicates yet one more of its constitutional responsibilities by not proposing a federal budget this year:

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made official Tuesday morning what most insiders have known for months: Congress won’t do a budget this year. Read more »

 I agree with him in that we must be honest with ourselves and ask what we will do to save our country’s future. Read more »