Thursday, July 4, 2013

A Perfectly Natural July 4th

Will you be celebrating Natural Law this July 4th? You should be. Your Founding Fathers did.

In declaring their independence and asserting their God-given rights, the Founding Fathers—particularly the pen of Thomas Jefferson—acknowledged the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”

These were no minor things. Indeed, maintained the Founders, you were entitled to them. (These were days when an entitlement meant something rather than any new thing.) The Founders believed that, in the course of human events, they had at long last arrived at that point where they and their countrymen could rightfully assume these rights “among the Powers of the Earth.” They were not only declaring their independence from the British Crown (itself a huge deal); they were asserting self-evident truths and claiming certain unalienable rights that were theirs not only as Americans but as humans.

So, what of this Natural Law stuff? What did and does it mean? And why does it still matter?

“There can be no doubt that those delegates in Philadelphia who adopted that Declaration believed in, and based the nation’s independence on, the Natural Law,” states Robert Barker, professor emeritus of law at Duquesne University, and an eloquent expert on the subject. Addressing the American Founders Lecture Series, held quarterly at Pittsburgh’s Rivers Club by the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College, Barker defines Natural Law thusly: “God, in creating the universe, implanted in the nature of man a body of law to which all human beings are subject, which is superior to manmade law, and which is knowable by human reason.”

The Natural Law as understood by the Founders, says Barker, was the same that for two millennia had been a “traditional and essential” element of Western civilization.

To illustrate the point, Barker marshals the likes of Aquinas, Sophocles, Aristotle, and Cicero.

Among them, he cites Sophocles’ play Antigone, where the heroine (of the same name), condemned to death by an unjust king, informed the king that he was violating a superior, natural law. “I had to choose between your law and God’s law,” she told the king, “and no matter how much power you have to enforce your law, it is inconsequential next to God’s. His laws are eternal, not merely for the moment. No mortal, not even you, may annul the laws of God.”

As Aristotle put it, the Natural Law is a universal law that transcends earthly regimes and stands common to all human beings, “even when there is no community to bind them to one another.”

Cicero saw Natural Law as true law. He wrote: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting…. It is a sin to try to alter this law … and it is impossible to abolish it entirely.” He added that “whoever is disobedient” to the Natural Law “is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature.”

The Natural Law is profound and profoundly true. Sadly, it has been profoundly ignored and rejected by modern liberals/progressives and the nation as a whole. We could rattle off a litany of examples, but a major one occurring right now is the issue of “same-sex marriage.” The idea of a man and a man or a woman and a woman marrying one another is an unequivocal violation of the Natural Law.

It is an arrangement gravely contrary to human nature. Unfortunately, today’s liberals/progressives could care less; they are fine with happily embracing any and all violations of Natural Law in pursuit of their own new, enlightened laws. It’s part of that glorious “fundamental transformation” of America.

Beyond liberals/progressives, there are countless millions of ordinary Americans who likewise could care less. Their idea of America and July 4th is hot dogs, beer, and fireworks. Natural Law? Sounds boring.

Well, it isn’t. Few things are actually as exhilarating, uplifting, redeeming. Think about it: the Creator implanted in you—that is, in your very nature—a body of truth and law to which you and all human beings are subject; it is superior to manmade law, and it is accessible and knowable by human reason.

Sounds like something worth knowing.

Limbaugh Calls Out Fox News

Rush Limbaugh -- the most powerful talk-show host in America -- just rightly called out Fox News for telling him to avoid talking about immigration. Why would the most fair and balanced television news source do this? Are they trying to shy away from a subject which embarrassed their number-one voice?

For those Americans who still don’t understand the one-thousand page “Gang-of-Eight” immigration bill -- and that would be most Members of Congress, most of the Obama administration and virtually all Americans -- it is critically important for them to go back and watch the June 20th airing of The O'Reilly Factor, where radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham absolutely eviscerated host Bill O'Reilly over his misguided support of this highly-flawed and incredibly damaging piece of legislation.

Is that why Fox News would prefer that Mr. Limbaugh not bring up the subject?

With regard to Mr. O'Reilly and Ms. Ingraham, I hold a rare distinction in that I have been banned by both hosts. With regard to Mr. O’Reilly, I was told that it was because I criticized him a number of years ago in a column I wrote on poverty. As for Ms. Ingraham, it goes way back to the days when I was director of communications for former Senator Bob Dole and politely took her to task over the phone for some sophomoric comments she made regarding the senator.

The irony in all this is that I have a huge amount of respect for both personalities -- thin-skin and all.

As a conservative, I happen to think Laura Ingraham -- like Mr. Limbaugh and Mark Levin -- is one of the most important voices out there articulating the need for traditional values, the rule of law, and just plain common sense. With regard to Mr. O’Reilly, I believe his voice to be vitally important for the debates of our times and believe that, more often than not, he does come down on the side of what’s best for the vast majority of Americans.

That said, he could not be more wrong on immigration. Worse than that, he could not have looked more foolish or ill-informed on the subject when Ms. Ingraham took him apart piece by piece on his own program. The segment has already gone viral and become a rallying cry for those Americans desperate to insert some sanity into a bill that sells out national security, the rule-of-law, commonsense, and oh, by the way, the millions of legal immigrants to this country who played by the rules, stood in line, waited their turn, and then proudly raised their right hands to become American citizens.

While the segment with Ms. Ingraham and Mr. O’Reilly should be watched in its entirety, one of the most important exchanges has to do with Mr. O’Reilly’s flawed belief that if the GOP does not cave into this embarrassing piece of legislation, that they will lose the Hispanic-American vote forever.
O’REILLY: “If they are indeed going to do what they say they are going to do on the border…and pay for it…if the Republican party is deemed by the Hispanic-voter to be anti-Hispanic…and it will certainly be spun that way…”
INGRAHAM: “Well, if you spin it that way.”
O’REILLY: “I’M not going to spin it that way.”
INGRAHAM: “Well, don’t buy into their narrative. It’s a phony fraudulent narrative.”
O’REILLY: “I live in the real world, and I know what the narrative will be.”
INGRAHAM: “So do I and I read the bill.”
Just by watching that exchange, it’s clear that Mr. O’Reilly is in the tank for this bill and does not know what he is talking about. More than that, despite his denying it, he is in fact joining the chorus of liberals and advocates for illegal immigration screaming that the GOP is “anti-Hispanic,” a notion Ms. Ingraham easily knocked down earlier in the segment when she pointed out: “The Republican Party will win more support in the Latino, Black, female, young-people sector if they start putting forth a pro-growth agenda for the middle-class instead of touting legislation that is going to hammer the middle class.”
Game, set, and match. Mr. O’Reilly would do well to read the bill, admit he was exposed on every front, and then get behind a commonsense solution for the “folks” rather than being used as a propaganda tool by the left.
Better than that, Mr. O'Reilly should invite Mr. Limbaugh onto his program to debate the issue.

Wise words out of Egypt...

Ros-Lehtinen to Newsmax: Obama 'Bet on Wrong Folks' in Egypt

By Todd Beamon and John Bachman

“They've bet on the wrong folks time and time again,” the Florida Republican tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview. “Many of us in Congress were saying: ‘Guys, look at the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a group that's going to take over — and it's not going to be what you think.’”

Story continues below video.

On Wednesday, Egyptian Army chief Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi announced that President Mohammed Morsi had been removed and was replaced with the chief justice of the Supreme Constitutional Court. He also suspended the Islamist-backed constitution and called for early presidential elections.

Morsi’s ouster as the nation’s first elected leader comes two years after the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak in another popular uprising.

The Arab world's most populous nation has been in turmoil since the fall of Mubarak as Arab Spring uprisings took hold in early 2011, arousing concern among allies in the West and in Israel, with which Egypt has a 1979 peace treaty.

First elected to the House in 1989, Ros-Lehtinen is the senior woman Republican in the lower chamber. She was chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and currently is chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia.

“The Obama administration is adrift when it comes to policy in the Middle East or North Africa,” she tells Newsmax. “Morsi came in with the Muslim Brotherhood. What does that mean?

“They were anti-Christian, anti-minority, anti-women — and one year after Morsi won in ‘his election’ and all of the millions of dollars that the Obama administration badly wasted in this government, the people have risen up and said: ‘No, you have failed us. We want you out. We want to try again.’”

The United States sends $1.5 billion annually in military and economic assistance to Egypt.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the State Department and Foreign Operations, said on Wednesday that federal law prohibits aid being provided when a democratically elected government is deposed by military coup or decree.

The Egyptian support would be reconsidered in upcoming budget talks, Leahy said.

But the issue has long been settled, as far as Ros-Lehtinen is concerned.

“It is way past time to suspend the aid,” she tells Newsmax. “Why are we giving money to theocratic regimes or to autocratic regimes? It's not like we don’t have a lot of problems here at home. Let's use the money wisely. Let's leverage it so we can help countries become stronger and freer and more democratic, which is in our national-security interest.

“Giving money to someone who's a thug and wishing and hoping and praying that they're going to turn into a Jeffersonian Democrat is wrongheaded. It’s foolish and it's never worked — and it's proven again with Egypt,” she says.

When she chaired the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ros-Lehtinen tells Newsmax that she put holds on aid to Egypt and similar rogue nations, but that the Obama White House always “went over our heads” to obtain the assistance.

She frets whenever President Barack Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry visit foreign nations, too.

“They give money away as if they were Santa Claus, giving people millions of millions of dollars,” Ros-Lehtinen says. “We need transparency. We need accountability. We need to see that the money that we're using to help us build friendships and keep our country strong is a really effective way of using American taxpayer dollars.”

Because the Obama administration backed the deposed president, it became clear to the Egyptian people whose side the United States was on, Ros-Lehtinen says.

“We gave Morsi a lot of money. We just threw that money down a rabbit hole. It's wasted. They know that the U.S. government was standing firmly with Morsi — and look what the Egyptian people did? They rose up.

“Now, it doesn't mean that all the folks demonstrating there are good guys,” she cautions. “There are going to be a lot of hot-headed factions there, but it's important for the United States to be cautious to not do anything that will exacerbate the violence.

“This could lead to a very bloody road and what the Egyptian people want it to live in freedom and democracy,” Ros-Lehtinen tells Newsmax. “Who does not want to live in freedom? That's everybody's dream — and it's a dream that should be fulfilled for all oppressed people throughout the globe.”

The Formal Indictment of Barack Hussein Obama

By Craig Andresen / The National Patriot

As Conservatives and Tea Party faithful, we are constantly preaching adherence to that great document, beginning with the words, We the People…

Our Constitution is that document meant to limit the scope of government and to protect We the People FROM government.

We cite the Constitution, we hold it up as THE law of the land and we strongly disagree with those, whether within our own party of the opposition who seek to circumvent or ignore it.

Our Founders and Framers were far-sighted enough to know that such a document was necessary and arguably, for the exact reason with which we now face…A president who sees himself more as a King or a Dictator, a congress complacent to maintain status quo and the abuses of power against the people that go with those things.

But…Today is the 4th of July...Our Independence Day.

In past years, I have provided historical perspectives and behind the scenes essays regarding our starting point as a nation.

Well and fine however, this year, on Independence Day, we need something stronger. Something more pointed and something that rises to a call to action.

Today, we need…We REQUIRE…A FORMAL INDICTMENT of the Dictator Obama.
I could not disagree more with those, socialists and liberals, who show disdain for our Founders and Framers alluding all the while to their words being outdated and thus, irrelevant.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

As proof, I submit, with only the slightest of alterations and with added examples, albeit an incomplete list of examples…


IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 2013.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen fifty united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Op: Today is Independence Day...

Wishing all my blog followers a very Happy Fourth of July.
May our great nation remain strong through adversity...may she forever remain a beckon of hope and freedom...and may 
God Bless America....always.