Loyal To LibertyBeta

"Where there is no vision, the people cast off restraint." (Proverbs 29:18)

"…abandonment of strategic vision leads to policy decisions that damage the national security of the country." (The USA- a special nation with special responsibilities)

The headline at newsmax.com says "Obama Moves to Muzzle Top Military Commanders." The words call to mind the passage in the Plato's Republic where Socrates compares the warriors who keep watch over the city to guard dogs. The image of America's armed forces as guard dogs wearing muzzles can only give comfort to our enemies.

"The Administration's primary target: top Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whose speech in London last week apparently caught administration officials off guard….In his speech McChrystal defended his request for 40.000 more soldiers to wage a counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan, warning "a strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a shortsighted strategy….McChrystal said the vice-president's proposal to scale back the objectives for the war would lead to "chaos-istan."

Shallow pundits focus attention on Obama's failure to win Chicago the Olympic committee's nod as the location of the 2016 Olympic Games. Meanwhile, here's evidence that he's losing something far more crucial to the survival of the nation- the respect of the U.S. military. In the position he presently claims, he is supposed to represent civilian control of the military on behalf of the American people. Failure to do so competently raises the specter of chaos far closer to home than Afghanistan, as the United States enters the jungle of military disgust with civilian authority that has swallowed the governments and constitutions of many a "banana republic" in our neighborhood to the south.

So far, we can be thankful that U.S. military personnel do not treat their oath to uphold the Constitution with the same contempt Obama exemplifies. His casual disregard for its requirements begins with withholding the best evidence that he meets the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the office he claims, and includes, just for starters, the exercise of executive power through so-called "czars" intended to circumvent Congressional oversight; efforts to usurp control of the decennial census in order to subvert the independence of the legislative branch; the abuse of public monies for openly partisan political pay-offs; unconstitutional disregard for the property rights of individuals and private enterprises; and disregard for the rights of conscience medical workers derive from the first amendment.

But his abandonment of the Constitution goes well beyond mere disregard of its provisions. He has abandoned as well the vision of liberty, founded upon respect for unalienable human rights, in light of which its provisions were made. Its correspondence with the requirements of just government casts the anchor of allegiance to the Constitution in the deep waters of the American heart, assuring a loyalty that transcends the vicissitudes of personalities and power politics. Respect for this anchoring vision has been a hallmark of the honorable tradition of Constitutional loyalty that has distinguished the U.S. military's service to the American people.

In exchange for this allegiance to the vision of justice that undergirds America's freedom, civilian leaders of the U.S. government owe it to our military personnel to accept their proffered dedication and sacrifice in the context of a strategic vision based on the goal of securing liberty that our military personnel have in common with the whole people they serve. When the U.S. took military action in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there could be little doubt that this was the strategic context. Terrorism substitutes a de facto regime of violence and fear for legitimate government based on the consent of the governed. Those who attacked the U.S. acted with the support of an infrastructure of terrorist groups and states whose concerted actions posed a comprehensive challenge to the American way of life, and in particular the lives and sovereign liberty of the American people. That comprehensive challenge required and justified a comprehensive response to restore and defend the national security of the United States. The military action in Afghanistan was one element of that response.

Obama has explicitly abandoned the concept of strategic action against terrorism (the so-called war on terrorism.) Pursuant to this change, he has curtailed U.S. efforts to attack and weaken the infrastructure of terror, including signals of dead-lined U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, the cessation of extraordinary pressure against terrorist cadre (signaled by the closure of the Guantanamo detention facility) and the possible pursuit of vindictive prosecutions against U.S. intelligence personnel directly responsible for implementing that extraordinary pressure.

Yet despite the collapse of the strategic vision that alone could make sense of it, Obama emphasized the intention to continue U.S. military action in Afghanistan. Isolated from any connection with the comprehensive goal of forestalling successful terrorist assaults against the territory or people of the United States, this intention has no justification except a vague and open ended commitment to "nation-building."

As a side benefit of actions that serve and strengthen the security of the United States, efforts to stabilize strategically relevant countries, and help their people develop and maintain just institutions of government can make sense. But military action sustained for the sole purpose of such nation-building serves neither the security of American liberty, nor the development of constitutional government elsewhere. The assertion of a people's liberty must sometimes be defended by the sword, but military force can never be the source or mainstay of that assertion. Government by force and government based upon consent are self-evidently in contradiction.

It is also self-defeating to remove pressure from the regional and even global infrastructure that supports our enemy so that he may freely concentrate all his resources on defeating our forces on the one front that remains open. This actually creates conditions ideally suited to achieve his victory, and substantially raise the death toll among our troops along the way, especially if our rear areas remain vulnerable to his assaults. (Given Obama's intensified neglect of America's border security, this vulnerability has been heightened rather than reduced by his abandonment of the strategic concept of the war on terrorism.) By design or incompetence Obama appears to be intent on creating a quagmire in which to dissipate America's military strength and resources. Most Americans have no objection to seeing their loved ones in the military risk and give their lives to fulfill the oaths that preserve the liberty of our people. It is deeply wrong to ask that they do so when the strategy that makes moral and military sense of their sacrifice has been cast side.

Finally it makes no sense to articulate an understanding of our global position that discredits the motives of our military actions, apologizes for the defense of our interests and friends and generally undermines confidence in our good faith, our good intentions and our moral capacity to sustain the difficulties involved in the course we undertake.

At best, Obama's actions smack of egregious incompetence. At worst, they foster the suspicion that he regards the ultimate goal the Constitution sets for the U.S. government―to "secure the blessing of liberty"― with the same contempt he has shown for its provisions regarding the prerequisites for the office he purports to occupy by its authority. If this is not the case, why has he abandoned the strategy that reflects the simple truth that a de facto regime of global terror and our national regime of liberty cannot peacefully coexist?

[Once in a while an exchange of comments occurs in response to one of my posts that is so instructive that I believe it should be shared with everyone. Such is the following exchange arising in response to my last post, The saving grace of the republican imperative. )If you have not read it, I suggest doing so before you continue.) I hope this will encourage readers to click more often on the comments button; to leave their own, or just read what's in progress. It's often worth the time.]

chiu_chunling said:

Dr. Keyes, you are apparently making an accusation...but I fail to see the substance or even the sense of it.

My point (and I did not see any others being made), was that you appear to disparage the one tactic for restoring a moral consensus and legal system in opposition to abortion which has any hope of being successful, which also happens to be the one most in line with the particular wording and intent of the Constitution.

If, as you seem to imply, there is some definite agenda expressed on the part of the Pauls to fix the 'peculiar institution' of abortion as an inviolable states' right for all time, I would appreciate it if you would address such statements. As I mentioned earlier, I don't have enough interest in the Pauls to follow their statements in any great detail.

On the other hand, if they have made no such statements of nefarious intent to use the mantra of states' rights to perpetuate the practice of abortion against all attempts to restrict it, then I don't see how their choice of the Constitutional strategy to remove control over abortion law from the province of the national government should be counted as support of abortion.

I once mentioned that even the hopeless battles must be contested sharply. I do not believe this implies that one must deliberately fight all one's battles on the worst possible ground. A hopeless battle is only worth fighting when the alternative is not fighting at all, when the alternative is an advantageous battle, one must wonder at the decision to fix one's standard in ground that cannot be defended.

Especially as I simply do not see the guiding principle that would give such a decision 'moral' merit. Restricting the power of the national government to purely Federal issues (as the Constitution provides) would seem to be the more 'principled' way to address this issue, as well as being more likely to provide success.

If you were to answer the following questions I might better understand your position.

Do you really believe that reversing Roe v. Wade would not be a substantial victory for pro-life activists?

Have those who express a desire to precisely reverse the Roe v. Wade decision made explicit statements that they foresee such a reversal being a fundamental victory for pro-abortion activists?

Is there some essential flaw in the design of the Federal system described in the Constitution, such that it should be considered unacceptable to leave the states with any significant role in making laws?

I would not ordinarily think to ask you these questions, but this last post leaves me in considerable doubt as to what your answers to them could possibly be.

Alan Keyes said:

The Pauls take the position that the states may abrogate their responsibility to secure the unalienable right to life of posterity. Along with McCain, Sarah Palin, etc. they have repeatedly said that laws permitting abortion are legitimate at the state level.

But the goal of republican government is to secure unalienable rights. This is not optional. It is a positive obligation of justice.

If a state abrogates responsibility for the security of the right to life (by declaring open season on posterity via so called abortion rights) it departs from the substance of republican government. The Constitution mandates that the Federal government guarantee adherence to the republican form of government. It is therefore constitutionally obliged to act to remedy the state's breach of republicanism.

This by no means implies taking away the state's right to make laws. Rather it enforces the state's obligation to make provision in the law for the security of unalienable rights, in this case the right to life.

By the way, on account of the constitutional requirement that all persons be accorded equal protection of the laws, the selective abrogation of the state's responsibility for the security of the unalienable rights of nascent posterity is not only a substantive formal dereliction of republican government, it is also a violation of a specific constitutional provision. (By the way, the Pauls, McCain, etc. do not hold to the view that nascent human offspring are not persons. They allow that they are persons, but claim that states can legitimately confer a right to kill them anyway. In this respect, their contradiction of republican constitutional justice is more egregious than is the case with those who hold that nascent posterity are not human beings.)

chiu_chunling said:

I am disinclined to put too much moral weight on the issue of legitimacy of laws. It is nothing more than which laws will actually be treated as law, when you get right down to it. In that sense, it is nothing more than a pragmatic judgment. And in just this sense, those who say that the states have the more legitimate authority to make such legislation have a very strong case.

If we are to hope for a reversal of Roe v. Wade by persuasion of the electorate rather than overthrow of democracy, then stating the principle of that reversal in terms of preserving the guarantee of self-government is prudent. In order for it to be moral, such statements should represent a real willingness to let the issue of abortion be settled by state laws. This in no way implies a abdication of the moral responsibility to advocate good laws, only to keep that fight at the level of the state legislatures.

I have mentioned before that a complete ban on abortion is unenforcible. While I'm willing to withhold the explicit details which would turn that argument into a de facto instruction in how to perform one, I will not let the point slide. Legitimacy of abortion laws may be a matter of pragmatism, but in the case of a law that can so easily be circumvented, it is not unimportant.

To put it very bluntly, where abortion is not regarded as wrong in and of itself, laws restricting it are likely to be ineffective. They will not be obeyed, and are likely to be difficult to enforce as well. A commitment to pursuing such laws through the democratic process at the state level implies persuasion of the majority in each state that abortion is wrong and should be eliminated by law. This persuasive process is precisely what is needed to actually eliminate (rather than unenforceably outlaw) abortion.

A declaration of absolute commitment to achieve some objective which rejects the methods by which it has any possibility of actually being achieved is...not prudent. If one understands that one is undermining the potential for success, then such a statement would be downright deceptive. Fortunately for my opinion of your honor (though it perhaps is something you wish to mend), you do have a notable tendency to lose sight of political realities in your pursuit of ideals.

To argue that the states have the authority to regulate abortion through their democratically elected legislatures is to imply that they may decline to do so. I'm afraid that one cannot disparage this reality of limited government...where an explicit law cannot be enacted through the legislative process, the law is silent. I favor limited government for a number of reasons, not least because it provides for laws to be explicit and regular rather than corresponding only to the whim of those in power. Regardless of whether or not it serves any given social or political end at some moment, limited government is one of the chief principles of the Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence, where--if you'll recall--the whimsical and arbitrary nature of the King's rule was the essential focus of most of the complaints).

In my life-time, there have been a number of different state laws which denied my right to exist or live because of my racial or religious background. I do not hold that any of these laws were good laws, but it never occurred to me that there was any point in disputing the authority of the various states to make them. The point was to fight to get them reversed (a fight in which I never had much interest, to be honest). States may make bad laws, or fail to make good laws. But if you have any love of the principles of limited government then you have to grant someone the authority to make laws, and the Constitution grants the authority over all but a few laws to the states.

Alan Keyes said:

The question of legitimacy is not a "pragmatic" issue unless one assumes that there is no standard of right and wrong apart from human will and imposition. The doctrine of unalienable rights invokes a higher standard, a higher law, the will of the Creator God. Human actions and legislation that contravene the Creator's provision for human nature are unlawful.

The people of the United States, and of each state respectively, base their claim to be the ultimate arbiters of authority for law and government on this provision. When, through their representatives, they make laws they cannot contradict the provisions of the higher law without vitiating their right to govern themselves.

If, without regard to the provisions made for human nature by the Creator, we accept as lawful whatever the people decides to be such, there would then be no difference between constitutional government and the arbitrary rule of despots and tyrants. However, the Constitution does not establish or sanction a tyranny of any kind, including tyranny of the majority.

To be sure, some Americans now wish to overthrow constitutional government, and to replace it with a socialist tyranny claiming to act on behalf of the people. They deny the existence of God, of any higher law and of any standard for human affairs except "history" (i.e., what happens determines what's right.) Put simply, this returns us to a world in which might makes right and success justifies everything.

The majority of Americans don't want to live in such a world. Since our tactical aim is to build a majority, the right tactical goal is to make sure people realize that whether or not we live in such a world is what is really at stake in all our present discussions. Because this is most directly clear when dealing with respect for unalienable rights (like the right to life,) emphasizing this aspect of every issue is the most salient and effective way of achieving the tactical goal.

By the way, the moral consensus we seek to achieve is not just about abortion, it is about justice and liberty. Making clear the unlawfulness of abortion serves and must be seen in the context of this overall purpose. Reducing abortions without restoring respect for God's provision of justice for humanity does not achieve the purpose, though all too many people presently regarded as pro-life leaders mistakenly think that it does.)

chiu_chunling said

The precise point of disagreement is whether directly reversing the national government's arrogation of the authority to decide the legality of abortion would 'vitiate' the principles on which America is based.

My argument (I don't know the details of the Pauls' position) is that the several states, while not individually necessarily any better stewards of this authority, are collectively better because they face competition and work under Federal limitations rather than acting as totally sovereign governments. Whether or not this argument is persuasive, you have advanced nothing in opposition to the argument itself.

I have no vested interest in holding this position, given that I believe that the Federal government is irreversibly delegitimized. I am perfectly willing to be persuaded...but you must make an argument that I can follow from premises I accept.

Alan Keyes said:

Where respect for the republican form of government is concerned, the Constitution clearly states that the U.S. government has responsibility for guaranteeing that it is maintained. This is a positive Constitutional duty. If a state respects the premises of republican government, no U.S. government action is needed. But if it departs from that respect (as it does with legislation that violates the unalienable right to life, for instance) the U.S. government has a Constitutional duty and obligation to act.

Those of us who work under the banner of the Constitution cannot treat its terms as optional. According to those terms, the states must adhere to the republican form of government.

Finally, though we act at a time when strong forces are working to abuse the power of the U.S. government, it has not been "irreversibly delegitimized". Its legitimacy depends on proper respect for Constitutional limits and duties, and will be restored along with that respect. Such is the aim of the work I and others are doing.

chiu_chunling said:

See, the leap you make between "Republican form of Government" and "advocating direct reversal of Roe v. Wade is pro-abortion" is the place you're losing me.

I realize you're connecting them. I just don't see the logic of that connection. Maybe you need to go through it a little slower or something.

For myself, I think the word "form" is in there for a reason. The Founding Fathers may well have realized that it would simply not be possible for the Federal government to actually guarantee that each state would be an ideal Republic. So they might have meant "Republican form of Government" quite literally, since it is easier to enforce forms than ideals. Just thinking...they paid a lot of attention to what might actually be possible in their design for the United States.

I believe in miracles. My existence cannot otherwise be explained, after all. And yet...I also believe in prudence. I don't actually practice it, but I do believe in it.

Alan Keyes said:

In matters of perception the word "form" refers to an object's distinctive appearance in perception. Our sense of its meaning must obviously take account of the faculties through which perception takes place. Reference to the 'form' of a tree calls to mind something different than referring to the 'form' of a piece of music, or of a dancer in action.

The 'form' of government is rather more like the dancer, in that it cannot be perceived except in action. Unlike the dancer, however, its 'body' appears mainly as an object of intellectual rather than material perception. Its form thus corresponds to a certain body of ideas (understood as a logically coherent arrangement of premises and conclusions to be carried into action.) In this respect it is more like the dance than the dancer, in that its form at any given moment is determined by choreography, which exists prior to action as an object of intellectual judgment and perception, an object of thought.

As an object of thought the republican form of government is a body of ideas that starts from the basic premise that "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". Just as a ballet dancer must respect the rules that govern the body's carriage during movement (appropriate flexure of the feet, rectitude of the spine, correct alignment of the shoulders, neck and head, etc.) a republican government must respect this basic premise (and its consequences) in all its arrangements and actions. If and when it departs from it (as legislation violating the unalienable right to life does) it is no longer maintaining the republican (i.e., just and legitimate) form of government.

I believe this clarifies the connection between ending "legalized" abortion and maintaining the republican form of government. The latter involves implementing a certain understanding of justice, so that its 'form' and its 'substance' (from the Latin sub stare, meaning to stand under) are inseparable.

The American founders had nothing but contempt for the idea of letting the U.S. Constitution become an arrangement of insubstantial "parchment provisions." A constitution is justice in action. That's why the oath of all government officials in the U.S. (including officials at the state level) binds them to carry it out (respect it in their actions.)

I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the RINGBOLT to the chain of your nation's destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. (Frederick Douglass, "Fourth of July" Speech)

As I suspected they might, some of my recent posts have roused opposition from the folks I now think of as the "Ron Paul nationalists." When it comes to opposing the destruction of America's national sovereignty, and seeking to restore the economic basis for the sovereignty of the American people, we seem to share a lot of common ground. But we part company when it comes to the distinctive substance of the American national identity, and its consequences for law and policy.

I take seriously the Constitution's demand that the United States maintain a republican form of government. This imperative has consequences for every area of national policy, domestic as well as international. But in the first place it affects the way we think about policy. It requires that we carefully think through and constantly keep in mind the defining goal of republican government and the principles of justice that determine it, for we cannot reliably conserve what we do not accurately perceive or understand.

Thanks to the summary of republican principle contained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, we have a succinct basis for doing both. The defining goal of republican government is to secure the unalienable rights with which their Creator has endowed all human beings. On account of this goal, the republican form characteristically confines government to the exercise of "just powers" derived "from the consent of the governed." Though still very familiar to many Americans, we too rarely pause to consider the full implications of the Declaration's words. Though consent is the sine qua non for the government's exercise of just power, consent is not the substance of justice. That substance consists in the Creator's provision of unalienable rights as an aspect of human nature. The governed may choose from among the range of government powers that secure these rights (government's "just powers") those which are suitable to their circumstances. Unjust powers of government (those that do not serve the goal of securing their unalienable rights) are not legitimized (made lawful) by the consent of the governed. So, though it is an essential feature of republican government, the sovereignty of the people is not absolute. It is subject to the Creator's prior provision for justice, to the higher law constituted by His will.

This is the key point ignored (or else willfully neglected) by the Ron Paul nationalists. It was also neglected (or simply rejected) by the states' rights advocates for slavery before the Civil War. From a republican point of view, their states' rights arguments were fatally flawed because no state government can claim the power to legitimize (make lawful) that which contravenes the Creator's provision for justice. The people's consent cannot supersede the Creator's authority because His authority is also the ground or basis for the right by which the people lay claim to government based on consent.

I have always considered this to be foremost among the saving graces of the Declaration's understanding of republican self-government. The very logic by which the people claim the right to be the ultimate arbiters of sovereign power limits their exercise of that power. They are constrained to respect the provision of justice that demands security for the unalienable rights of every individual. Because the authority for that provision is the same as the authority that requires that government be based on their consent (the will of the Creator God), the people cannot abuse their sovereignty without destroying their just claim to exercise it. In this way, republican self-government respects the constraints implied by the Bible's Golden rule: if the people act unjustly toward others, they destroy the basis for justice toward themselves.

Both the Obama national socialists and the Ron Paul nationalists turn away from the beautiful symmetry of the Declaration's wisdom. Both treat the idea of limited government as if it were simply about the good or bad results of action, with respect to the particular aspect of justice they hold to be paramount. The Obama faction does so claiming to seek social and economic equality. The Ron Paul nationalists do so in the name of personal freedom. They either fail, or else refuse to see the essential purpose of limited government, which is to establish the exercise of government power on a basis that keeps the pursuit of particular goods within boundaries that respect and preserve the possibility of justice for all.

I first began to appreciate the Declaration's wisdom years ago, during the preparation of my doctoral dissertation when I first immersed myself in the thought of the founding period. I was then still deep in the throes of a very personal struggle to reconcile the hurt and anger I felt as I learned about the terrible injustices that slavery and racial prejudice inflicted on black Americans. As I think it did for Frederick Douglass, so for me the knowledge of America's essential commitment to the law of justice for all helped to kindle first respect and then an abiding love for the idea of the American nation, on account of the moral and spiritual encouragement this commitment to justice has given to people of good will throughout the nation's history.

But it's also on account of the salutary reminder it involves, that every particular quest for justice must be tempered by respect for justice itself, so that no claim of just purpose in itself calls for or justifies the exercise of morally unconstrained power. I learned that liberty involves more than freedom, even as justice involves more than getting good results. Both have an intrinsic source and foundation, to which respect is due at every step along the way. So I came to the paramount truth on which the substance of republican government depends: the presence and authority of the Creator God. This is the truth in which America's identity truly abides: "in all places, and against all foes, and at whatever cost."

There are many who profess, at least in their hearts, to recognize this truth. When will they mobilize the ultimate saving grace of the republican imperative, and unequivocally act on their profession?

This past weekend I traveled to Kentucky to stand with Bill Johnson, a candidate for the Republican nomination for US Senate. Bill has all the characteristics that ought to make him the candidate of choice for grassroots "tea party" conservatives who understand that American liberty stands presently on the verge of its demise. A U.S. Navy veteran who served with distinction in the first gulf war, Bill believes that the oath he swore to uphold, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution represents a lifelong commitment. Bill isn't one of the politicians who pay lip service to the Constitution while promoting or tolerating the destruction of the unalienable rights from which it derives its purpose and content. As a matter of priority, he defends the unalienable right to life of all persons, from the moment of conception. Like the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Bill is not afraid to acknowledge that those rights are based in the authority of "nature and of nature's God". So he defends the prerogatives of marriage against the assault of those who seek to redefine it without respect for that authority, and who thereby discard its basis in the obligations of family and child rearing that arise from the natural relationship between a man and a woman.

Bill's stands on issues across the board reflect this principled commitment to American liberty. He stands against the Obama faction's determined efforts to push America over the cliff of socialism. As he says on his campaign's website " I want to be a voice for concerned citizens across the Bluegrass State who have 'had enough' of politicians violating our trust. For that reason, I am running in the 2010 Republican primary for the United States Senate. I stand for limited govern, low taxes, strong military, gun ownership, marriage between one man and one woman, and life begins at conception."

Though he competes for the Republican nomination, Bill Johnson is first of all a conservative in the true sense of the term. He refuses to capitulate in any of the areas vital to the moral, economic and physical survival of liberty. He will not sacrifice conscience in order to project phony moderation on issues like abortion. He will not sacrifice individual property rights or free enterprise in order to accept the consolidation of socialism that masquerades as compassion. He will not sacrifice the common sense requirements of our national security in order to curry favor with those who pretend that retreat from America's providential offer of leadership to forces of freedom around the world will somehow make our liberty at home more secure.

Bill Johnson represents, and advocates with passion, the core beliefs of common sense conservatives like those who have gathered at Tea Party events, and Town Hall meetings throughout the U.S. He is precisely the kind of candidate the Republican Party leadership would welcome if they meant sincerely to represent such conservatives. Instead, the Republican Senate Campaign committee has thrown its resources behind a so-called "moderate". This reflects the present Party system's tragic corrosion of representation in politics. The two parties actually represent one power, that of arrogant elites intent on wresting from the people unchallengeable control of the country's resources and its future.

But the Republican primary race in Kentucky also features another choice vital to the resurrection of real constitutional government in the U.S.: the choice between Bill Johnson and Rand Paul. Ron Paul's son is mounting a well funded effort to exploit the rising tide of voters who identify with the conservative name. But like his father, he rejects Ronald Reagan's 'Peace through strength' acceptance of America's leadership for freedom in the world. Like his father, he echoes Barack Obama's illogical willingness to pretend that America is to blame for the hateful attacks directed against us by Middle East terrorists. Like his father, he seeks the support of those who understand that the Constitution cannot survive unless its foundation of respect for unalienable rights is preserved. But, again like his father, he asserts that it can somehow be just and lawful for State governments to violate the unalienable rights of human offspring in the womb or the research laboratory. It's only wrong when the Federal government does so.

Sadly, Rand Paul's stands disregard the common sense requirements of our national security. They also contradict the clear logic of the conservative creed which, like the United States itself, begins with the understanding that the fundamental purpose of government is to secure the unalienable rights which, by God's will, are part of the birthright of our humanity. The U.S. Constitution explicitly requires (Article IV, Section 4) that all of the States of the United States adhere to the republican form of government, which is to say government based on the consent of the governed and limited in its powers to those actions consistent with respect for their unalienable rights. It makes no sense for people to claim that they respect and revere the Constitution, and yet take the position that the State governments can depart. whenever they choose, from the foundational premises of republican government. Whatever their claims, such people are pro-choice on unalienable rights, and in principle no different than those who abuse the rhetoric of 'choice' to camouflage the injustice of their assault against posterity in the womb.

Is it possible to abandon the foundational principles of Constitutional government, and yet still be regarded as a true conservative? Isn't liberty what we seek to conserve? But as our Founders repeatedly admonished, liberty is not the same as licentiousness. It does not mean redefining right to suit our desires. The root of our claim to rights is the idea of right as it is established by the will of the Creator God. We therefore cannot have the right to do what is fundamentally wrong, what contradicts, rejects or violates this basic premise of all justice. Ultimately, this is the basis for the concept of 'limited government'. It is limited not by calculations of human power and inclination, but by the requirements of justice, grounded in the transcendent will of God.

Thus, states' rights cannot trump unalienable human rights. The will of the majority cannot confer on government at any level a legitimate power to do that which contravenes the premise of all governmental legitimacy. If it could, then Cass Sunstein and other Obama faction ideologists might be right when they argue that government has the legitimate power to do whatever those who control the government believe is preferable. The collectivist logic of totalitarian socialist control, though it tramples on individual unalienable rights, could somehow be made compatible with formal respect for the Constitution, despite the consolidation of unlimited power in the hands of government to do as those who control it see fit.

What point is there in maintaining the façade of conservatism while taking stands that pave the way for legitimizing, in principle, every kind of tyrannical abuse?

I went to Kentucky to endorse Bill Johnson, and I will return again and again to help him as best I can. I will do so because he offers the only alternative that does not contradict and betray the common sense conservatives who long firmly to reestablish the simple logic of American liberty, so that it may long endure. I hope and pray that among those of you who read this, there will be many who see fit to visit his web page. Confirm what I have said. And then contribute what you can to the effort to assure that, at least in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Kentucky, voters will be able to support a candidate who is truly conservative because he first seeks to be true to the American creed.