Treading Upon Dead Children.

In some sense I feel like I'm beating a dead horse when it comes to gun control measures and the Second Amendment, but my outrage at what the leftists in the government are trying to foist upon the American citizenry is overpowering. I cannot and will not be silent.

If you're truly interested in my defense of the Second Amendment you can look at some of my other posts so I will not take the time to repeat it in full here. What upsets me the most is the President and his followers using recent tragedies, especially Sandy Hook, as a stepping stone for taking freedom that is not theirs to take e.g, the freedom to protect ourselves from evil doers. There is no difference in the filth they are spewing about gun control and using dead Marines as a platform to gripe about sequestration.

In the past few days the President has paraded around with some of the families that lost children in the Sandy Hook massacre. He, along with others, have vowed to push stronger gun control measures under the guise of honoring the deaths of those children and an effort to assuage the anguish of the parents. What those parents probably don't realize is that honoring the deaths of their children is not the driving motivation behind the current batch of gun control propositions. Rather, they are being used as a convenient tool in an effort to disarm law abiding citizens. Those on the left have one goal in view, gain more control over the population for the government. This is almost always wrapped in some kind of humanitarian ideal that leads to less equality, less opportunity, and less freedom. Of course, one of the most important steps in this plan is to disarm the people so that they have no way of resisting, in any meaningful way, the encroachment of the government.

Perhaps the most stomach churning statement that has been made was by Senator Harry Reid when he said, "The least Republicans owe the parents of those 20 little babies who were murdered at Sandy Hook is a thoughtful debate about whether stronger laws could have saved their little girls and boys." First of all, there is absolutely no willingness on the side of the liberals to have a "thoughtful debate" on the issue. To them "thoughtful debate" means bowing to their ideas. Anything else is quickly shot down as shameful. Secondly, the liberals decry thoughtful debate over these 20 children whose lives were lost but the same "thoughtful debate" is unwelcome when it comes to millions of unborn babies that are murdered each year through legalized abortion. If they were really concerned about saving lives they would consider banning any form of voluntary abortion on demand. Alas, when these two issues are considered together we begin to see the real wolf behind the fluffy white clothes.

The truth of the matter is this. There are already a number of laws in place to address the issue of violence in our society. For those who may not understand what I mean, it is already illegal to murder other people and there are severe consequences to breaking that law. It is also illegal to commit armed robbery or assault. Furthermore, it is already illegal for citizens to own machine guns, grenades and grenade launchers, tanks, shoulder fired missiles and many other types of weapons. If sweeping gun legislation passes then it seems to me that we need to create some additional laws concerning alcohol. Drunk driving deaths in our country are some of the most tragic because innocent people have been killed by someone who chooses to misuse an otherwise legal substance. If we really want to save lives then we should outlaw all forms of alcohol as well. Funny thing, we did that once and then decided it was a serious infringement on people's freedom.

Let's not be foolish and believe that gun control is an effort to stop violence and please stop using the grief of families as a political tool to reach evil ends. In fact, let's not even call it gun control because that isn't what its about. Let's call it freedom control. If we really want to honor the deaths of those children let us give people the means to defend against tyranny of all forms. Heck, while we're on the topic of honoring deaths let's honor the deaths of millions of American fighting men and women who have given their lives to defend freedom and the Constitution that guarantees it. To those in Washington, please stop lying to the public. If your ideas are so great then let them be known. It is a coward who needs to hide behind twenty elementary school students.

Semper Libertas,
RV

What are We Encouraging?

As you may have  detected from one of my earlier posts I am something of an Ayn Rand fan. That is not to say that I agree with her philosophy 100% and I am certainly on a different plain theologically but that does not mean that there are not some points of contact in her thoughts and my own. As of right now I am a few hundred pages into her epic novel Atlas Shrugged. I first became intrigued by this work after I watched the first installment of the movie. I quickly came to realize that in the political realm Ms. Rand and I were nearly next door neighbors. Her ability to accurately predict our current state of affairs in the United States from several decades in the past is hauntingly prophetic. As I read some of the statements made by political officials and the railroad alliance in the book I am shocked at how much they sound like statements being made today.

Admittedly, I have only just begun to scratch the surface of this lengthy work of literature but one thing that stands out to me so far is the question of what we encourage in our society. The clear message of Atlas Shrugged, as far as I am, is that society has ceased to encourage what I think Rand would call "greatness." This is replaced with mediocrity and what the characters in the book would inaccurately define as "fairness." For the powers-that-be in Rand's world it is "unfair" that Henry Rearden is capitalizing on his own ingenuity and business prowess. He is made to feel guilty because he is in business to make money, and as much of it as he possibly can. What of all the other, less than stellar steel companies that he is putting out of business because he excels at it? It is also seen as unfair that Rearden is pushing the technological envelope with his new "Rearden Metal." All of this, of course, is coming at a time of worldwide economic downturn.

The parallels with out current condition in America are frighteningly clear. Almost every night on the news, and certainly throughout the Presidential election we just experienced, the ingenious and productive in our society are being demonized. There seems to be some mysterious, and yet undefined, limit on how much money one person or corporation is allowed to make. Beyond that figure it is seen as unfair, unethical, and immoral to reap the benefits of one's effort. Added to this is the clear message from our government that it will provide handouts to anyone who wants them. I will never forget the almost incoherent rant of a staunch Obama supporter who was raving about her "Obama phone" and how no one was going to take it away from her if she had anything to do with it. My dear wife had a similar experience at a local clothing store just the other day. While perusing the racks of clothing she overheard one of the employees explaining to her co-worker that one of her friends had just been fired from her job. She went on to explain that it was not nearly as tragic as one might assume because at least her friend could now draw unemployment. Where does that money come from? You and I.

As more and more people get on the government "dole" and as that provision becomes more and more lucrative what message do you think is being sent to the people? "Why work for my income when I can just get it from the government?" My fellow Americans, that it the only message that is sends, the only one.

As a result of far reaching promises by the government more income must be conjured up to meet the budget. As I am sure everyone has heard, it is up to the wealthy to pay their "fair share" to fund the check the government has already written. In what reality is it right for the producers to pay for those who refuse to produce? I am in no way suggesting that there should not be some kind of provision for those who are unable to provide for themselves. I do believe that the Church and other charitable organizations should bear the greatest portion of that responsibility but I really have no problem with short-term unemployment benefits. However, we are way beyond that today. I have heard far too many stories of people who are genuinely disabled and cannot get the benefits due them while the lazy and unproductive are sent to the front of the line.

The problem with constantly upping the definition of what someone's "fair share" is, is that it completely discourages people from striving for greatness. If someone knows that once they reach a certain threshold of profit they are going to be taxed at 60-70%, then what motivation is there for them to produce a product or service that will lead to them exceeding that amount? I can see a few things happening. First, that person could stop striving for greatness. If there is no motivation for doing better or creating a better product than the next company, why try? Secondly, that person will seek ways in which to get around the system. These are the loopholes we kept hearing about during the election. If the government is going to tax the daylights out of my income, why not put it in an account somewhere else? What is that doing? Moving the dollars somewhere else where they are not helping our economy. The third thing is like the second. A productive business may just decide to take their business elsewhere. Again, this does nothing for our economy or general greatness.

What people fail to see is that when companies are doing well, making money and producing products that people want to buy, everyone benefits. Once one person begins to increase technologically then it motivates others to do the same in order to keep up competition. This drives prices either up or down which can increase wages and thereby increasing consumption. Steve Jobs and the iPod/iPhone/iPad is a perfect example of this. Here was a guy who revolutionized portable electronics. He had a vision for a really groundbreaking platform and created a product that is still at the top of the list. What was the result? Every other electronics company tried to make their own version. In a sense, Jobs' ingenuity single-handedly propelled the consumer electronics market to where it is today. In the process he also saved a computer company that was on the way out. Here's the crazy thing, if you look at the average salaries of Apple employees they are far above minimum wage. Jobs, though passed on, made an inordinate amount of money as a result of his ideas but it was also passed along to the people who helped make the company great.

Now, for every Steve Jobs and Bill Gates on the planet there are also plenty of CEOs who pad their bank accounts at the expense of those who work for them. This is inexcusable but it is not a problem for the legislators or national executives. It is a problem for the ethicist, theologian and evangelist. A wicked CEO is going to find a way around the law no matter how many you pass to address their wickedness. The solution is to turn the wicked CEO into a good CEO. Despite what the Social Gospel crowd would have you believe, changing the system is not going to change the people in the system.

In the interest of not exposing a problem and then offering no solution I will offer my solution.

1) Stop encouraging laziness in society. Show the people that hard work pays off. This means strict limits and requirements for unemployment, disability and welfare. Let it be what it was meant to be, a stop gap.  There is a massive difference between giving someone a hand up and a handout.

2) Encourage giving to charitable organizations and free those organizations to do their work in the most effective manner possible. A private organization can almost always do something more efficiently than the government. This will free the government from their self-proclaimed responsibility to care for everyone.

3) Encourage people to strive for greatness. Ease harmful regulations that are only designed to provide bureaucratic jobs that offer nothing to society. Let people keep the money they have earned through their own effort. Certain taxes are just (national defense, provision for elected officials, etc.) but most that we have today are not and they go to pay unjust and ultimately harmful programs.

Sadly, the truth of the matter is that as long as people understand that they can vote themselves a handout it is almost impossible to make these changes. I hope that we are not beyond the point of no return in our nation and I pray that we can elect statesmen who will courageously attack the problems we face in our time. If we are to be a great nation once again we must strive for that greatness and stop encouraging mediocrity. History has proven that once mediocrity takes hold, tyranny is just around the corner.

Semper libertas,

RV    

Who Runs the Country?

Within the past six months we have seen one of the most incredible demonstrations of democracy in the world, and it is something that happens, at least, every four years. That demonstration is the peaceful election of our national leadership. More specifically, in November of 2012 we saw the re-election of our president. Whether or not you are a supporter of President Obama we can all stand in awe of the system that governs our land. So many other countries do not experience peaceful transitions of power and they are certainly not on such a regular basis.

It is interesting to note that, historically, voter turnout for Presidential elections is far higher than the mid-term elections of Senators and Representatives. For instance, according to a study by the New Policy Institute, in 2008 (a Presidential year) the voter turnout was 67% for voters over the age of 30 and 51% for voters between 18 and 29. Compare that to the 2006, mid-term elections which saw a turnout of 54% and 25.5% respectively. This trend is basically the same as one goes back to 1972. Now, this little tidbit of information would allow one to draw the conclusion that Presidential elections are more important than Congressional ones. Why? In my opinion, it is because we have come to believe that the real power of our government lies in the executive branch. I will admit that over the past century or so this has become more and more the case. However, according to the Constitution the reality is altogether different.

Before I go any further in the exploration the question of who runs our country I want to lay some groundwork first. Please hang with me because I think the effort will pay dividends as we move along.

First of all, despite what most have come to believe about our form of government, we do not live in a pure democracy. That's right, our government is not really a democracy in the truest sense of the word. There are a few different ways to describe our government from "Constitutional Republic" to "Democratic Republic." Whatever term you choose the bottom line is that we elect, democratically, representatives who carry out the business of governing as public servants. Of course, one could debate the nature of a servant that makes $400,000 per year (President) or $175,000 per year (Representative) but that is beside the point. In a pure democracy everything would be up for vote and we would probably spend the better part of our lives at the ballot box. Of course, the founders also knew that pure democracy could quickly degenerate into "moboacracy" and wisely framed a different system.

The next important point that must be made is that we, in the United States, have a beautiful document called the Constitution. You may have heard of it, even though it is fading from common usage. The basic purpose of the Constitution was to carefully define the role and limits of the government and guarantee the citizens maximum freedom. Never forget, the Constitution was made for you and I, and our benefit. It was designed, especially the Bill of Rights, to protect us from an overreaching government. Within that document, which is made up of only a few pieces of parchment, you have all the major aspects of our government; the legislative, judicial and executive branches.

Now, if we begin to look at the Constitution, as it was ratified, we begin to see some things that are not immediately apparent to the modern American. Regarding the topic at hand, one thing that stands out is that it took the framers ten articles to define the role of the legislative branch while it only took four for the executive branch. Just by sheer volume this tells me that the framers wanted to vest the most power in the legislative branch. Why? Because that branch most accurately represented the people of the "many states." One can almost look at it like a pyramid. The House of Representatives is the largest body within the government and it is also the portion that is directly elected by the people. This means our "local" interests are given a fair voice in the national scene. Here comes the fun part. Next, we have the Senate which is made up of representatives who were selected by the state legislature (Thanks to the 17th amendment this is no longer the case). This gave the individual states a voice in the national governance. Finally, the President was to be elected by a group of electors from each state the number of which was determined by the combination of Representatives and Senators from the "many states." These electors would be representative of the local desires of the people and they alone would vote for the president. This, of course, sounds completely alien to we who are used to casting our ballots for president. The beauty of this system is seen in the fact that it would not be a "winner take all" situation like we have now.

All of that being said, the framers of the Constitution clearly wanted the legislative branch to be the workhorse of the government. They are given the most power to carry out business and nearly everything was supposed to originate in Congress. Yes, the President had to sign off on laws and treaties (good checks and balances) but the role of the executive was exactly as the name implies, execution of the will of Congress. The sad reality is that most Americans have no idea that Congress is far more important to the direction of the country than the President. We have become so accustomed to hearing presidential candidates claiming that they'll do this and that, and making promises that they have no Constitutional ability to make good on. It is my opinion that if most voters had even a basic understanding of the Constitution they would see most campaign promises for what they are...swill.

This is why all elections are so vitally important, especially congressional elections. Yes, the President does have veto power (another great check and balance). However, Congress can override a veto by a two-thirds majority (Article I section 7). All laws, taxes and declarations of war come only from Congress, not the President, along with a long list of powers. This is the balance that our founders discovered. Power was not vested in one person which would lead to the same tyranny they fought against, and the sometimes dangerous tides and currents of the public as a whole would be checked by a smaller group of elected officials. The very heart of our government is found on Capital Hill in the two houses of Congress.

To be sure, many things have changed in the intervening years since the Constitution was ratified. Many of these changes were for the better. We no longer have slavery and all citizens over the age of 18 are now allowed to vote. However, some of the changes have not been so positive and have only served to degrade the original intentions of our founders and ultimately have resulted, and will continue to result, in the loss of much of our freedom. Our Founding Fathers envisioned a grassroots type of governance where local elections meant the most and where Congress held the real power in the nation. The challenge for us today is to return to that vision and make each and every vote count. We not only need great men and women of courage and integrity to run for office, but we need to put them there and entrust to them our national leadership.

RV 

Altruism, Ayn Rand and Christianity.

Photo courtesy of eddie60

One of the more controversial authors in our time has been Ayn Rand, in particular her book Atlas Shrugged. To call her work "conservative" would almost be an understatement. In fact, it may be closer to libertarian but in the end I'm not sure any particular label would fit. No matter what you call it, it is clear that the world that Rand pictures in Atlas Shrugged is strikingly similar to the one in which we find ourselves today. Government had grabbed far more power than it was given in the Constitution and personal achievement and success were demonized.

To be sure, Rand intended this book to be an opus of her philosophy and how it fit into American society and the free-market system. One of the ideas that caused so many ruffled feathers at the time, and still today, was that of the virtue of selfishness. My understanding of this idea is that it is good and right for you to want to live life on your own terms and enjoy success and achievement that allows you to live that life. One could almost sum this up in the phrase from the Declaration of Independence, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As a side-note I have no doubt that Ayn Rand was patriotic and loved the United States. In fact, her ideas were very closely aligned with those of the Founding Fathers.It was this love for freedom and her country that led her to write such a volatile warning of what could happen if we are not careful.

Lest I get bogged down in other matters I need to move on so that the main point of this post will be addressed.

One of the root problems that Ayn Rand saw in our collective philosophy was the notion of "altruism." This could be understood to mean that other people are more important than I am and, thus, I am willing to sacrifice my own well-being on their behalf. This is seen in the act of a soldier falling on a grenade in order to save his comrades. It is also seen in giving sacrificially so that others who are suffering may have what they need. To Rand this conflicted with her philosophy of selfishness because it hindered you, the productive and creative member of society, from reaching your full potential for success and achievement.

Herein lies the problem. As a committed Christian I am convinced that altruism is a virtue. In John 15:13 Jesus tells us that there is no greater love that laying one's life down for his friends. We are commanded to take care of those who are marginalized by society or cannot otherwise take care of themselves. On the other hand as a constitutional patriot I firmly believe in the ideals of freedom, liberty and the individual's right to pursue their own destiny. So for that part, I am a fan of Rand's political philosophy. The question then is this, "Can Ayn Rand's philosophy cooperate with the Biblical Christian worldview?"Personally, I believe the answer is "Yes," and that is the position I want to defend in this post.

It is no secret that Ayn Rand was NOT a Christian. In fact, if my understanding is correct, she was an avowed atheist. This in and of itself would appear to pose a significant problem to Christians. However, I believe the truth is quite the opposite and here is why:

1) All truth is God's truth. Truth is not something that is relative, a moving target, or completely out of the reach of humanity. If something is true, then it is true for all people, for all time, everywhere. Furthermore, truth relates to the way things actually are. This is called "Correspondence Theory." That is, if I say something is true then it must correspond with the way things actually are. God, as a result of who He is, knows all truth and according to His Son Jesus, He is the Truth. Therefore, it does not matter what type of person discovers a particular truth, if it is true, then God agrees. This opens the door for Christians to glean truth from multiple sources like Greek philosophy, etc. Of course, the ultimate source of truth for humanity is found in the Bible and any so-called truth that contradicts what is revealed in the Bible is not truth. However, truth that is found outside of the Bible that corresponds with, or is not contradicted by, the Bible is fair game. For our purposes here, if Ayn Rand proclaims a truth it doesn't matter if she doesn't believe in God, it is still truth.

2) Altruism itself is not the problem. Because Ayn Rand was a promoter of freedom and liberty I have a hard time believing that she would fault anyone for giving or sacrificing by their own freewill. The problem is that because it is a commonly held virtue, it has now become a nationally mandated virtue. Here is where we really run into problems on the governmental level. The reasoning runs something like this: It is right and good to give and sacrifice for those who are less fortunate (altruism). You have achieved success and prosperity unlike many others. Therefore, since you will not give of your own freewill to help others we will take it from you because you are greedy and selfish. Then we will distribute it as we see fit. In Rand's mind the virtue of altruism had led to governmental thievery and quenching of personal achievement. This is where I see my Christians convictions and the political philosophy of Ayn Rand coinciding. I too believe that mandated altruism is wrong. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is not altruism at all. The Bible is clear that God wants us to give out of a heart of love for him and for other people, and to do so cheerfully; not out of obligation. The virtue of altruism is no virtue at all if it is no longer voluntary but forced. John Wesley has given us a great model that I think speaks to this subject. In paraphrase, he said that we should make all we can, save all we can, so that we can give all we can. The message of the virtue of selfishness is not that people should not help other people. In that case it would be categorically wrong. The message is that people should be allowed the freedom to pursue life as they see fit, to achieve personal success and then do as they see fit to help other people without the interference of the government.

With all of that being said, I do believe that the political philosophy of Ayn Rand coincides well with the Biblical Christian worldview. While I do not agree with everything that Rand stood for I do believe she stood for the same principles that our country was founded upon. She promoted freedom to be creative, freedom to succeed, freedom to believe what we want to believe and freedom to live our lives according to our desires and convictions.

RV

Oath of Allegiance

Photo courtesy of somadjinn

Throughout our lives we often find ourselves swearing allegiance to one thing or another. For instance, when I was in elementary school we said the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. If, by chance, we are called to jury duty we are made to take an oath of honesty that is often said with the Bible as witness. For those of us who have served, and are serving, in the US military we take an oath of enlistment. The example which follows is for the National Guard but the only difference is the inclusion of the state and governor. 

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

The Naturalization oath that some makes when becoming a US citizen is strikingly similar;

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Do you notice something unique about these oaths? To help you out let me show you the Oath of Allegiance from the British military;

I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me. So help me God.

Do you see it now? We, in America, swear allegiance, not to a person but to an idea laid out over 200 years ago on a piece of paper. Yes, we are to obey the orders given to us by our superiors and the president but only as far as they conform to the law, the Constitution. The number one thing that we are to defend in this nation is the Constitution. Why? Because it contains everything this country stands for and it outlasts any particular elected official. It secures for us the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

Notice too that we are to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. We can see this idea even as far back as September of 1776 when this oath was approved for the armed forces;

I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them.

"All enemies opposers whatsoever." Why put this in the oath? Surely there would be few, if any domestic enemies. I believe the Continental Congress understood that those who oppose the ideals of liberty and freedom were not limited to outside forces. The same is true today. There are plenty of people within these United States that stand against everything our country was founded upon and everything that has made it great. 

So what do we do? First and foremost, I do not believe that I have been relieved of my oath. No where in that statement is it understood that I will stop defending the Constitution and our country when my enlistment ran out. Furthermore, I have not released myself from the oath. I still love my country as much as the day I signed up for the National Guard. Therefore, I believe the following actions are consistent with the oath and my Christian convictions.

1) Vote: This is the easiest and most readily available form of opposition to those who are enemies of the Constitution. It is my right as an American citizen and squandering it would be tantamount to surrendering in war. The founders of our country put this right in place to provide the citizens with a peaceful and fair way to ensure our liberty. One of the great testimonies to our form of government is the peaceful transfer of power for over two centuries, always because of a vote.

2) Petition: The 1st Amendment insures many things, one of which is our right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Our government is not above the law, the people or fault. If we sense an issue needs to be addressed then we have the freedom to bring that to the attention of our elected officials. Along with the petitions to representatives we are allowed the freedom to petition with our presence, in a peaceful manner, through assemblies and marches. This is a visible "show of force" that can be seen by the government and the media. Finally, and again thanks to the 1st amendment, we are free to petition our God for the healing of our land. 

3) Speak: Again, the 1st Amendment comes to our rescue on this subject. Praise God that in our nation we are free to express our views and opinions without fear of imprisonment or persecution from the government. We can share our views in the public forum with relative liberty, whether it is through speeches, videos, blogs, books or other forms of communication. 

4) Resist: Please do not misunderstand me on this point. Resistance is the last and most extreme form of defending the Constitution. Every effort must be made to find peaceful solutions to our grievances. There is no excuse or justification for jumping to this point. However, my allegiance is first to my Lord and King Jesus Christ and secondly to the Constitution of the United States of America. I have never, and will never, swear allegiance to any one person outside of Christ and the vows I have made to my wife. The result of that would only be tyranny and that is something God and our nation strongly oppose. As Americans our rights are delineated in the Constitution and most of those rights come directly from the Author of all rights, God Himself. These cannot be usurped or denied by any earthly entity. The Declaration of Independence sums up this idea far better than I ever could;

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

Notice, though, that this powerful statement at the heart of the Declaration is preceded by this equally important statement;

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 

Again, resistance is the last of all courses of action but it is one that our nation was founded upon. 

My goal is not, and never will be, to sabotage our nation. I love these United States and freedom that it has afforded to so many throughout the years. Despite our problems I still believe we are the greatest nation the world has ever seen. However, this greatness is at risk and we have strayed far from the ideals and principles that made us that way. My call is not to rewrite the Charters of Freedom, but to return to them so that we can enjoy future security, prosperity and freedom.

RV