It’s Not July 4th, It’s Independence Day

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

On July 2, 1776, George Washington sent general orders to his officers explaining the war effort:

“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them.

The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; this is all we can expect. We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die. Our own Country’s Honor all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. read more

This Is What “Leading From Behind” Gets Us

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

Remember this? You should, for it’s been all over the news recently. “After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next”, Sarah Palin told foreign policy in 2008.

 

Boy that Sarah Palin. What a foreign policy dope. Glad she’s not in charge. I’m glad we instead have leaders like Obama, Biden and John Kerry, even if they collectively have never made a correct foreign policy decision… Ever!

 

Is Putin really this brash, to stare down the West as he reconstitutes the Soviet empire? It appears he is.

 

Now, he won’t say that is what he is doing, but that is what he intends. And why do we suppose he thinks he can get away with it? That’s simple. Because the current “Leader of the Free World” is a schoolyard bully. Remove him from his familiar schoolyard environment and he is a shrinking violet. read more

When Was The Real First Thanksgiving? That Depends

On October 3, 1789, America’s first President under the 1787 Constitution, George Washington, issued a historic Thanksgiving Proclamation.  Congress had instructed him to “recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God.”  This he did.  Many consider this the nation’s first Thanksgiving Proclamation.  But was it?  Well, that depends.

There had been many previous days of a general giving of thanks in America’s history, some bearing little relation to our present holiday.  Many took place long before America was a country, under the reign of the monarchs of England.   read more

2014: The Tea Party’s Battle of Trenton

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

It seems lately that the Tea Party has been losing and losing a lot.

We freedom loving patriots have been beaten down, each time to pull ourselves back up only to be vilified in the press, derided by the Democrats and undermined by the Republicans.

But as discouraged as we may be at times, we must hang in and continue to fight for our country and posterity. Yet with all our efforts it seems we lose battle after battle.

Well, there’s a new battle on the horizon and will be upon us quickly: the 2014 elections.

George Washington said, “Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable…”

He is of course correct. A small, highly motivated force can do seemingly miraculous things and this is what the Tea Party must become, now more than ever.

We may be relatively small in number, but properly motivated and disciplined, we can begin to beat back the progressives that seek to destroy us. And they do wish to destroy us!

The local, state and national elections of 2014 can be our Battle of Trenton.

The Battle of Trenton was rather minor but yet possibly the major turning point of the Revolutionary war.

Worldwide, most would recognize the large iconic painting of Washington crossing the Delaware. The painting depicted Washington and his ragtag army crossing from Pennsylvania to New Jersey on Christmas night, 1776.

Prior to that fateful night, Washington’s Continental Army had suffered defeat after disastrous defeat and had gained no major victory. Sound familiar?

His army at that point had literally been decimated. It was a desperate time, that Christmas night, as 2400 frozen and starving troops set out across a raging ice laden river. And when I say frozen, I mean frozen. Many soldiers were without any shoes or socks. Barefoot and starving they were on their way to battle 1500 hardened Hessian troops in Trenton New Jersey.

This was not a major battle by any means but it had to be fought for the British and their Hessian mercenaries were on their way to the Colonial capital, Philadelphia.

This minor battle was however one for the ages. Lasting only two hours it was a decisive victory for Washington as his army dispatched the Hessians shouting “Victory or Death”. The size and length of the battle was no measure of its significance. With his back to the wall, Washington willed his troops to victory.

News of the victory spread quickly. Instead of walking away, his battered troops reenlisted. Many more young men began to show up to enlist and join the fight. That one small victory changed the outcome of war.

Now do I really need to explain the correlation to present-day? I thought not.

We freedom-loving patriots do not need to win the war. We only need to win a few battles to begin to attract others and coax them from the sidelines.

This latest debt ceiling defeat may be a small victory in disguise. As we all know, Ted Cruz was savaged in Washington DC, yet arriving back in Texas he received what could be a record (in length of time) standing ovation from a sizable crowd.

These are the small, untold victories that move people from the sideline and spark the movement.

As Rush said recently; just think what we could do with just 5 or 10 more Ted Cruz’s. That battle is winnable.

Syria: Should We or Shouldn’t We: American Neutrality is Not Isolationism

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

Syria is neither a friend nor ally. The conflict in Syria is a civil war, an internal struggle, not a war of international aggression or imperial colonization. Yet those of the “we must do something” crowd are insistent of our entanglement and brand all others as “Isolationists”.

 

Once again, our governmental brain trust would be well served to consult our own history. More often than not, the answer can be found.

 

As The Heritage Foundation asserts, it is helpful to define what is meant by “isolationist.” The term isolationism applies to a policy of abstaining from economic and political relations with other countries. By this definition, the best examples of isolationist foreign policies are offered by 17th century China, 18th century Japan, 19th century Korea, or 20th century North Korea.

 

Let’s not confuse or commingle military abstinence with economic and political isolationism.

 

During an Independence Day speech, John Quincy Adams fervently argued that America had no inherent responsibility to intervene abroad (emphasis added):

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.”

 

Policies set forth by the founders were born of affection for republican self-government and their desire to preserve the country’s sovereign independence.

 

Washington advocated for a foreign policy that would allow America to, “choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.”

 

During Thomas Jefferson’s Administration, the United States, acting in our interest chose war, joining forces with Sweden and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies during the Tripolitan War against the Barbary Pirates. Such foreign military cooperation was essential in defeating the Muslim privateers (terrorists), loosely associated with the Ottoman Empire (surprise; present day Iran). It was the new nations first foreign war.

 

From the beginning, the primary purpose of U.S. foreign policy has been to defend the American constitutional system and the interests of the American people.

 

Jefferson summed it up in his First Inaugural Address as “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.”

 

And thus was a difficult decision to be made by our first president. The rebellion during the French revolution solicited Americas help as a military and political ally. The Marquis de Lafayette, who had been George Washington’s aide-de-camp during the American Revolution and had become a close personal friend, had personally requested the assistance of Washington and the Americans. Yet Washington knew that supporting France would likely drag America into a disastrous war against her will.

 

So in April, 1793, George Washington signed a proclamation declaring America’s neutrality, although the word neutrality is found nowhere in the declaration. In short Washington, like Jefferson feared an entangled alliance. He also did not wish to involve America in another nations internal struggle.

 

In 1822, President Monroe officially recognized the independence of Argentina, Peru, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. The United States was the first established nation to welcome these new republics into the community of nations. Thus was the Monroe Doctrine.

 

President Monroe stated of the Monroe Doctrine, “The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”

 

The Monroe Doctrine would hardly be considered isolationist and it was the last major declaration blessed by both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Must have been nice and quite convenient to be able to seek direct council from the Authors of the both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. How cool is that?!

 

With the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. attempted to ban imperial ambition from one-third of the globe’s surface, thereby delegitimizing the accepted system of imperialism and attempting to fundamentally alter the international order – hardly an isolationist policy.

 

So how does all this “history” equate or relate to the upheaval in the Middle East? What would the founders have advised us to do?

 

That’s easy; stay out of it. We had our chances long ago to support freedom and liberty and we sat back and did nothing. Now all these uprisings have been high jacked by one terrorist group or another. There are no good guys, no freedom or liberty to support.

 

This is also an internal struggle. If Washington was able to say no his dear friend, The Marquis de Lafayette, during France’s bloody revolution, we sure as heck can say no to Syria, who are neither friend nor ally.

The New History

The Left Continues to Revise America’s History

by

books

One of the many unfortunate effects of Barack Obama’s re-election is that it will empower the radical left to continue revising America’s history.  The fastest way to undermine a country is to undermine its history, and the best place to bRadical_Left_War_Americaegin is in the nation’s classrooms where pliable young minds are easily influenced.

This is precisely what the left has been doing for decades, and with evident success.  The left has made great strides in undermining the family, taking over the public square, and dominating education at all levels.  But some of its most effective work has been in revising America’s history.

Russian philosopher Alexander Solzhenitzyn said: “To destroy a people you must first sever their roots.” Patrick Buchanan said: “To create a ‘new people,’ the agents of our cultural revolution must first create a new history; and that project is well advanced.”

In 1992 that bastion of liberal thought, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), received a two-million-dollar grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the U.S. Department of Education to develop new standards for history solzhenitsynbooks for grades five through twelve.  UCLA completed this assignment in 1997.  Since that time, its standards have had the intended effect.  UCLA’s standards for history books for public school children have resulted in the following:

No mention in history books of such American luminaries as Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, or the Wright Brothers. It is the lives of exceptional Americans such as these, among many other factors, that validate the concept of American exceptionalism.  Consequently, to undermine the concept, liberals must remove any reference to exceptional acts and exceptional people in American history.  

The founding dates of the Sierra Club and the National Organization for Women are given special significance.  In truth, the only thing that warrants inclusion of these organizations in history books is that they are considered sacred institutions by the left.

Instructions for teachers concerning how to teach the unit which covers the traitor Alger Hiss and the spies Ethel and Julius Rosenberg encourages leeway to teach the unit either way.  In other words, teachers are given the leeway to teach the unit as if Hiss was not a traitor and the Rosenbergs were innocent.  This is the rosenbergssame Alger Hiss who was convicted by a jury on the basis of hard evidence, evidence that since his conviction has been validated many times over by further discoveries.  And these are the same Rosenbergs who gave America’s atom-bomb secrets to Joseph Stalin.

The Constitutional Convention is not even mentioned.  One of the reasons for this is that the deliberations of America’s founders as recorded in numerous documents such as the Federalist Papers as well as those of the anti-federalists are clearly at odds with today’s liberal orthodoxy.  The tactic of the left is simple.  If the founder’s views do not reinforce those of the left, eliminate any reference to their views in history books.

George Washington’s presidency is not mentioned nor is his famous farewell address.  Rather than learn about the two terms of our country’s first president—two terms in which everything Washington did was precedent setting—students are encouraged to develop an imaginary dialogue between an Indian Leader and General Washington at the end of the Revolutionary War.  What students are supposed to learn and how students are supposed to benefit from this hypothetical dialogue is not explained.

The Soviet Union is commended for its great strides in space exploration, but America’s moon landing is not mentioned.

Terockefellerachers are urged to have students conduct a mock trial for John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil.  No mention is made of the fact that the homes of most of the students are heated by energy derived from petroleum and the gasoline in the cars driven by teachers comes from petroleum.

The new history standards developed by UCLA have had far-reaching effects.  Look at any history book written for public school students in the K-12 system and you will be appalled at what is included and what is not.

There are now history books being used in America classrooms that give more coverage to Madonna than to George Washington.  Further, America is often portrayed in the way that Barack Obama views it: as a villainous nation bent on world dominance, imperialism, the perpetuation of slavery, and a variety of other evils.

What is less likely to be found is any positive coverage concerning a Constitution that guarantees the rights of everyone, including liberals who are bent on the destruction of America as the founders envisioned it.

Divine Providence

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Have you ever had the feeling you were chosen by a higher power and driven to do something exceptional? Yeah, me neither.

That’s because it’s so uncommon. There is a name for this phenomenon. It’s called Divine Providence.

Divine Providence is not often revealed to mankind, but it does happen. There are times in our history when it seems God has reached down from the heavens and plucked a man (or men) from the masses and guided him to do what must be done in that moment in history.

I don’t believe George Washington just happened. He was chosen and guided through Divine Providence. No one else could have been that guy. As great a collection of minds as they were, not Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, etc. could have been the inspiration that was Washington. He was chosen because he was the one man that could take on the task and see it through.

The King of England, George III, the Mad King, begat George Washington. The King was a bad guy and the colonies needed a polar opposite to lead them out of bondage, as it were.

Washington was not perfect, but he was a good and just man. He was, by no coincidence, exactly what America needed at the time.

Abraham Lincoln was also that man this country needed at that exact time in our history.

James Buchanan, Lincoln’s presidential predecessor was arguably pro-slavery, at least so far as the American territories were concerned. He had many pro-slavery advocates in his cabinet.

Once more, Buchanan begat Lincoln. Many would argue Lincoln was not an anti-slavery advocate to start, but no one could make that claim, by the time he ran for reelection against George McClellan, who wished to end the war and compromise with the south allowing slavery to continue.

I contend that Lincoln was guided on the path of good and no other, at that time in history, could have accomplished the task of both preserving the Union and emancipation.

Carter begat Reagan. In the late 1970’s this country was floundering and leaderless. Carter was a weak administrator at best and America craved, no needed, a strong leader. Reagan was that man. He was a good man with strong ideals and not afraid to call out evil. He reminded us how great America was and how it could be again, that we were the last best hope of mankind and a beacon of freedom for others to emulate.

He was the man, guided by Divine Providence , to restore and renew America. No other of his time could have been that man.

And so do we stand at this moment in history with a clear choice, and Mitt Romney is the clear choice.

As many know, Romney was not my guy, as it were. He is not the “true conservative” we all think we need and as we would define a conservative.

What Mitt is, is a good man. I have concluded that a conservative policy wonk is not now what America needs, although, as an added bonus, we will get one in the V.P., Paul Ryan.

In every crucial moment in our history, a phoenix has risen from the ashes to pull us back from our path to self destruction and place us back on the path to good.

It’s as if God gives us a little rope and then pulls us back when we stray too far.

I’m no clairvoyant, but I think we might be living in an historic time. We may be witness to another Divine Providential event.

Evil gives way to good and Barack Obama and his administration of radicals are evil, maybe the worst in our history. They may not be “the Devil” evil, but evil in that they wish to shake the foundation of liberty and freedom established by our founders until it topples, in order to rebuild it in their own warped image of the “perfect” society.

It’s not evil to wish to change things, if done in the light, where all can see, understand and freely choose. The evil is in the covert way they’ve chosen to operate.

The mark of a good man is how good he is when no one is looking. Few people are as good as Romney when no one is looking.

We, at this moment in history, need a good and moral man. I believe, through Divine Providence, Mitt Romney has been chosen to be our standard bearer of good.

Do I wish that Mitt was not only good but more conservative? Yep, but I’ve come to gladly accept that he is not both. He is honest, moral and very hard working.

That’s what we need at this moment in history and we get to witness the history and hopefully be a part of it.

Mitt Romney, Father of our Nation?

So we recently learned the ancestry of our lord and savior, Barack Hussein Obama. After an exhaustive and no doubt expensive geneology search including DNA evidence & Ouija Boards, the Associated Press reports magical concrete evidence that our dear president is not only the descendent of slaves but undeniable proof he descended from the very first American slave. He’s even more authentic & awesome that we thought!

Of course, it’s not until nearing the end of the article (you know, the part that no one reads), the wholly unbiased AP admits the links are weak at best and really can’t be proved. What’s important is that it could be true if one just wants it to be badly enough.

Hearing of this revelation the RGCA (Republican genealogical Committee of America) decided to conduct its own study on presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

The committees findings suggest Mitt Romney’s ancestry can be traced back to George Washington, the father of our nation.

Here are the indisputable facts: 

Washington was known to sleep in many places, if you know what I mean.

We’ve all seen the signs, “Washington Slept Here”.

Well it seems George Washington may have taken a secret trip down below, to Ole Mexico.

In one of the places where “Washington slept”, lived a peasant girl named Consuelo Romneskasketa .

After Washington’s swift departure, most didn’t believe her, as she attempted to describe her tryst with George. She, however, retained proof of the affair. During the height of their night’s passion together, she got a splinter in her lip from one of George’s wooden teeth. The splinter, I hear, is still housed, under glass, in the Mexican museum of Antiquities.

The press of the day, hearing rumors upon Washington’s return to the states, asked him for comment. Was there any truth to the rumored affair with Mexican house girl Consuelo Romneskasketa? And what about this “Splinter”?

Washington’s purported answer was, “It depends on what the word, “Splinter” is.

Family Resemblance Anyone?

They also discovered the origin of Mitt’s name, which is apparently American Indian. Being that Southwestern American Indians and Mexicans have a similar heritage this was not uncommon, nor a surprise to the highly skilled linguists of the RGCA.

The english translation is as follows:

Mitt was derived from the Indian Mittaskeshaw, meaning outsourcing.

The linguists claim Romney comes from the Indian Romneskasketa, meaning, capitalist exploiter.

I wasn’t aware the Native Americans language had such words, but I am not going to question the experts.

So, there you have it. Absolute proof. Obama = First American slave, Romney = Father of our country.