Patriot Post Vol. 08 No. 16 | 18 April 2008
GOVERNMENT & POLITICS
Patriots Day 2008
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, ‘What should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”—Samuel Adams
On 19 April 1775, the brave Patriots at Lexington and Concord fired the opening volley for American liberty. Today we honor them, as well as those Patriots who continue in that tradition, shouldering the burden of American liberty, particularly those on the warfront with Jihadistan.
By the spring of 1775, the Massachusetts Colony was preparing for conflict with the Royal authority over taxation without representation. The colonial authorities had become oppressive, and American Patriots were prepared to cast off their masters.
On the eve of 18 April 1775, General Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts, dispatched a force from Boston to confiscate weapons stored in the village of Concord and to capture Patriot rebels Samuel Adams and John Hancock, reported to be in Lexington. But Patriots had anticipated this raid.
Paul Revere had arranged for advance warning, and though he was captured, Patriot allies William Dawes and Samuel Prescott continued their midnight ride for 22 miles from Boston’s Old North Church to Concord and warned militiamen along the way.
As dawn arrived on 19 April, between 50 and 70 militiamen came to the town green at Lexington to confront the British column. When a few links away from the militia column, the British officer swung his sword, and said, “Lay down your arms, you damned rebels, or you are all dead men. Fire!” Several Patriots were killed and wounded, but none had been ordered to return fire.
However, when the British arrived at Concord’s Old North Bridge, American “Minutemen” fired the “shot heard round the world.” That was the beginning of an eight-year struggle for American independence, a beginning we honor on Patriots Day.
Publisher’s Note
We invite you to visit The Patriot Shop and celebrate our nation’s heritage by purchasing and displaying high-quality framed images of our Founding documents. The Patriot Shop also has the largest selection of official military-branch insignia items on the Internet. And don’t forget to visit The Patriot’s Historic Documents pages for additional resources on America’s founding.
Patriots Day Insight
“Don’t fire unless fired upon. But if they want a war let it begin here.”—Captain John Parker at the Battle of Lexington ++ “The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth.”—Thomas Paine ++ “Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!”—George Washington ++ “The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations... This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.”—John Adams ++ “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”—Thomas Jefferson ++ “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”—Patrick Henry
From the Left: The debate on guns
ABC’s Charlie Gibson seemed to abandon the Leftmedia script on Wednesday night at the Democrat debate in Philadelphia, when he aimed some uncharacteristically tough questions at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. On the subject of the Second Amendment, Gibson asked Obama whether the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns was consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms. Obama affirmed his belief in an individual right to bear arms, but then said that, like other rights, it is subject to government constraint.
As is typical of Democrats, Obama went on to mention the importance of firearms in the context of “tradition” and “hunting,” but not once did he say anything about the right to self-defense or the role of firearms in keeping the government accountable to the people. (See: “Revolution, American.”) This is hardly surprising, considering that Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 2004 that he favored a national ban on concealed carry. When Gibson asked Obama if he still favored registration and licensing of guns, Obama dodged the question by saying that he favored “common-sense approaches,” another favorite phrase from the Democrat playbook. When Gibson mentioned that Obama’s handwriting was on a questionnaire that supported a total ban on handguns, however, Obama denied it, adding, “[W]hat we have to do is get beyond the politics of this issue and figure out what, in fact, is working.” Obama used Chicago as an example, where “[W]e’ve had 34 gun deaths last year of Chicago public-school children.” Obama failed to say how many of those children were gang members, and he conveniently left out the fact that Chicago, like DC, has had a total ban on handguns for years.
Hillary Clinton’s responses were similarly vacuous. She said that she would renew the so-called Assault Weapons Ban (or as we say in our shop, “the ban on guns with certain cosmetic features”), and that she supports “sensible regulation.” On the question of whether the DC ban was consistent with Second Amendment rights, Hillary evaded by saying she didn’t know the facts of the case. She also praised Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter for his (illegal) efforts to curb crime (by banning guns). More on that later.
Of course, Hillary is in favor of “federalism” when it comes to allowing states to have their own restrictive laws concerning guns. She said, “What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.” Blanket rules like, you know, the federal “assault weapons” ban?
Speaking of Patriots Day, both gun-grabbing candidates should keep in mind what Justice Joseph Story had to say on the matter. Story was a Supreme Court nominee of James Madison, the author of our Constitution. “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered,” he said in his Commentaries on the Constitution, “as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.”
Campaign watch: Candidates deal with finances
The Democratic National Committee claims that John McCain violated campaign finance laws by withdrawing from public financing during the primary race earlier this year. The DNC has filed a lawsuit to compel the Federal Election Commission to investigate whether McCain took public money in order to secure a $4-million loan he obtained last year. Ironically, the FEC is currently stretched thin with only two of its six seats filled, thanks to arguments over appointments between the Democrat Congress and President Bush. Democrats are hoping to hold McCain to the limits of public spending so that he has essentially no campaign cash until the general election begins in September.
Meanwhile, government watchdog group Judicial Watch has asked the FEC to investigate the legality of a fundraising concert that singer Elton John held for Hillary Clinton at Radio City Music Hall. The concert raised over $2.5 million for the Clinton camp, but these may be ill-gotten gains since Sir Elton is not a U.S. citizen. As Judicial Watch points out, the concert constitutes an in-kind contribution from a foreign national, which is illegal by federal law. Not that campaign finance laws have hampered the Clintons from raising cash in any manner possible in the past.
As for Barack Obama, in a campaign ad running in Pennsylvania markets, he has been proudly proclaiming that his campaign does not accept money from oil companies. One might think that this is an admirable stand, except that no candidates take money directly from oil companies because it is illegal. Another item that must have slipped Obama’s mind while he was polishing his shiny armor is that two of his top fundraisers are oil executives. George Kaiser, chairman of Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. , and Robert Cavnar, president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC, have each bundled between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama’s campaign. There is nothing illegal about this, but it is indicative of just who Barack Obama is.
Carter aids and abets terrorists
Jimmy Carter’s decision to meet with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal this week has prompted several Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Ehud Omert, to avoid meeting with the former U.S. president. Israeli President Shimon Peres spoke with Carter last Sunday, calling his plan to meet with Meshaal a “severe mistake.” That’s putting it mildly. In addition, for the first time ever, Israel’s secret service has declined to help American agents protect a former U.S. leader during a trip abroad.
Hamas, long recognized as a terrorist organization, has been boycotted by the West since Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary election. Although Hamas has called for a truce with Israel in exchange for an end to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the organization’s 1988 founding charter advocates the destruction of the Jewish state.
Carter defended his decision to play the role of “useful idiot,” stating that the most important single foreign-policy goal of his life is to “bring peace to Israel and peace and justice to Israel’s neighbors.” His actions, however, and his 2006 book comparing Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip with South African apartheid, say otherwise.
Carter also made time to visit fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat’s grave, on which he laid a wreath of red roses. Arafat, often called “the godfather of terrorism,” took home the prize in 1994, along with former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, then Israel’s Foreign Minister, for his peace efforts in the Middle East. We believe columnist Frank Gaffney, Jr. , had it right when he said, “In the final analysis, Jimmy Carter will be best remembered by history as a man whose time in and out of high public office was almost unblemished by success.”
This week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ award
“I feel quite at ease in doing this. I think there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process... I think that it’s very important that at least someone meet with the Hamas leaders to express their views, to ascertain what flexibility they have, to try to induce them to stop all attacks against innocent civilians in Israel and to cooperate with the Fatah as a group that unites the Palestinians, maybe to get them to agree to a cease-fire—things of this kind... I’ve been meeting with Hamas leaders for years.”—Jimmy Carter
News from the Swamp: Colombia snubbed
On the Hill: The U.S. -Colombia Free Trade Agreement is effectively dead (for now) because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) doesn’t think the federal government is doing enough to help the ailing economy. Yes, you read that right: Pelosi wants an additional “stimulus package,” a mortgage bailout and more spending on infrastructure, and she’s willing to stiff a key U.S. ally to get it. Pelosi did just that last week when she changed the House rules that required the trade agreement to receive a vote within 90 days. It is now unlikely that Congress will have a chance to vote on the pact before President Bush leaves office. Pelosi’s ploy also throws a bone to her controllers at the AFL-CIO, who say they will not support a free-trade agreement with Colombia under any circumstances.
Speaker Pelosi might have overplayed her hand, however. This is the second time in two years that she has used the Colombia trade agreement as leverage with the result that politicians, businessmen and even Latino-Americans are starting to object en masse. Case in point: On Monday, 35 former senior officials from Democrat administrations sent an open letter to Pelosi urging passage of the U.S. -Colombia Free Trade Agreement, noting that it is “in both our vital and national security and economic interests.” We agree, as does virtually every editorial page in America (including The New York Times). Nevertheless, Nancy Pelosi is too busy pandering to union members, foolish borrowers and protectionists to concern herself with good economic policy.
Earmark criminal investigation
“The Senate moved yesterday toward asking the Justice Department for a criminal investigation of a $10 million legislative earmark whose provisions were mysteriously altered after Congress gave final approval to a huge 2005 highway funding bill,” The Washington Post reports. The earmark in question was inserted by known pork addict Rep. Don Young (RINO-AK), who was, at the time, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It was Young, after all, who sponsored the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” earmark in 2005. His staff admitted that this latest earmark was “corrected” just before it headed to the president for his signature. The correction sent the money directly to a highway interchange project on Interstate 75 near Naples, Florida—conveniently near 4,000 acres of land owned by real-estate developers who had donated to Young’s campaign. The value of the land would increase if an interchange were built. Local Florida officials, however, were none too pleased to learn that the $10 million had to be spent on an interchange they never requested. As for the investigation, it may be the first of its kind.
’DC Madam’ guilty
Deborah Jeane Palfrey, also known as the DC Madam, was found guilty by a federal jury this week, bringing another tawdry Washington scandal to a close. Palfrey was convicted on every charge, including running a prostitution ring, money laundering, illegal use of the mail and racketeering. Her defense tried to claim that she was merely providing escorts for clients and that the monkey business that took place was at the discretion of the women who worked for her. Needless to say, the jury didn’t buy it. The media didn’t seem to make much of Palfrey’s conviction, most likely because Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) wasn’t called to testify during the trial, even though his name appeared in Palfrey’s little black book. A Republican caught up in a sex scandal is normally big news. A madam looking at jail time for running a prostitution ring... well, life goes on.