WASHINGTON, DC – JULY 21: U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)
How unfortunate it is… No!
How SAD it is… to be writing a post that Prudence hopes will be – can be – read later than September first of 2022. Does that sound extreme? The worries of a foolish patriot? Maybe YOU are not paying attention.
Nancy Pelosi, relatively un-American Speaker of the House for only the crassest, most selfish reasons (those who have repeatedly voted her into the Speakership have always done so for their own, temporal, financial, re-election benefits and not those of their constituents) has decided to “visit” our Asian “friends,” indeed, leaving on the trip today, July 30, 2022. Prudence hopes that this date does not mark the beginning of the end of the United States’ independence.
Part of her itinerary, perhaps for some good reason that escapes the grasp of most thoughtful observers, was announced to include a visit to Taiwan, an island nation with a most unusual history, coveted by Communist China since Chiang Kai-Shek fled the mainland at the end of the Communist Revolution. The communists, in keeping with their world views, intend to fully absorb Taiwan, even as they have absorbed artificial islands they’ve created above various reefs in the South China Sea.
For several decades known as the island of Formosa, from a name bestowed by Portuguese explorers, Taiwan has never been a comfortable fit with the rest of Chinese Dynasties, experiencing numerous rebellions, particularly by indigenous Taiwanese, mostly populating the mountainous central spine of the island. “Formosa” even existed for a few months as an independent Republic, following the Sino-Japanese War, in 1895. Japanese rule also didn’t last very long. Until the Nationalist Chinese under Chiang Kai-shek invaded and dominated the island in 1949, there had never been solid Chinese control of Taiwan (“Taoian” to its natives). During the mid-1600’s the Dutch East India Company fought Han Chinese repeatedly for control of shipping and trade on the Pescadores islands near Taiwan, and control of Taiwan, itself. They, too, were driven out.
All in all, control of Taiwan has only in the past 70 years been Chinese, albeit Nationalists. The Communist mainland government has at least as legitimate a claim as the Nationalists, having defeated the Nationalists in 1949. Only the support, explicit and implicit, of the United States, strong allies of the Nationalists against the Japanese in WW-II, has prevented Communist China (“PRC”) from taking over. U. S. affinity for democratic republican governments, and for the strategic value of Taiwan specifically against the PRC, and our virtual economic and military dependence on imports from BOTH the PRC and Taiwan, forces the U. S. to attempt continued threading of the needle between the two nations.
China has made its intention to take over Taiwan clear; the U. S. has replied in muddled, ill-defined terms of “support” or “defense” of Taiwan. Under Joe Biden, who always seems to back down when pressed by the PRC, China may perceive that there will never be a better opportunity to make a strike on Taiwan. This should make everyone who voted for Biden for President and those who intentionally covered up his corrupt connections to the Chinese Communist Party, ashamed of their role in weakening the U. S. against the only country/empire that can not only replace the U. S. as the dominant force in the world, but, should we back down on Taiwan, push us out of the Far East as a trusted ally for anyone.
What are the possibilities if Nancy DOES stop off – or attempt to – in Taiwan? None looks good, but we need to look around the world for other conditions in the summer of 2022 to understand the list of possible consequences.
China is watching the Russian crimes against Ukraine very carefully. What has ”the West” done to counter the Russians? Did NATO – the U. S. in particular – STOP the Russians? Well, no, we shrank back when Russia rattled its nuclear weapons. We have provided lots of weapons, not always timely, but eventually, and we appear to be content to let Ukranians die in their own defense. The U. S. does not appear to be ready to die alongside them. There is no particular reason why the U. S. would have the will to do anything different for the Taiwanese… at least, that is likely the logical deduction of the Chinese.
Then their question has to be: “If we attack Taiwan, will the U. S. do anything differently from what they’ve done for Ukraine?” One wonders if anyone in OUR country knows the answer to that question.
But, the Chinese are both cautious and operating on a longer schedule than biennial elections in the United States. Somehow the visit to Taiwan by the American Speaker of the House has presented a golden opportunity to China. If a few blusters by the CCP can keep her from visiting, there is something to learn about U. S. resolve. If she does visit, that is also something to learn.
But, but, but… what if she takes the challenge and decides to attempt to land on Taiwan in the face of the PRC’s telling her – and us – that she can’t go there without PRC permission? Will the Communists perform their show of force as threatened? Just as Pelosi may feel that she has to go to Taiwan, the Chinese may feel that they have to carry out their threats. Now, Chinese fighters and U. S. fighters are in the same airspace with Chinese pilots acting aggressively. One of them, or more, slides within the defined safe zone of the Speaker’s plane and Americans fire a warning shot to back them off. The Chinese, who already threatened to fire warning shots in the run-up to the conflict, fire their own warning shots but an American plane, if not the Speaker’s plane, is hit. The Americans shoot AT the offending Chinese plane and it is forced down or the pilot is forced to eject.
Talk about supply chain interruptions. The Chinese could invade Taiwan as soon as the Speaker lands, or sooner! Too bad if Americans are hurt or die. The U. S. sinks an aircraft carrier. It’s going to be a very difficult Christmas.
Do we even know what we are doing – the U. S. Navy that is firing people for not accepting those dangerous and useless mRNA injections?
Or, the Speaker decides to not visit Taiwan. Everyone is all smiles as she returns to the U. S., but the end of U. S. enforced “freedom of the seas” is upon us, and history will have changed for a century or more, all to America’s disfavor. This is a real pickle. The Chinese could decide at that point that the U. S. is comprised of wimps and LGBTQx+ people who are too confused to fight for our country, and certainly too afraid to fight for any other: Taiwan is invaded. Forty countries will abruptly stop playing nice with the U. S. and begin ignoring dollars. Life becomes extremely unpleasant inside our borders. Even welfare may have to be cut back! God forbid.
When tyranny threatens, elections are months away.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL MILITIA
The evolution of American constitutionalism responded no more to the several theories of rights and representation of the late 18th Century, as much as to the necessity of freeing ourselves from the shackles imposed by the British Crown and a non-representative Parliament. That freedom would not have been won without “Militias” – home-grown assemblages of armed citizens, by definition, non-governmental organizations. Our Constitution references these quasi-military, self-selected groups of passionate defenders of farm, family and business, in the Second Amendment.
The potency of the Second Amendment is rarely mentioned. Everyone argues over the “… right to keep and bear Arms…” Opponents of gun ownership point to the first phrase, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, …” as if it referenced what we now call the State Police, or even “State Militia” which are controlled and limited by our friendly and benign state governments. Some liken the term to the National Guard, which is even further off the mark. “Militia,” in the Second Amendment, refers to self-declared and assembled, armed, private-citizen organizations. It is not clear that such organizations are legally tolerated today.
In fact, there are a number of such groups around the country: legal gun bearers who come together like clubs, perhaps including some militaristic training. They tend strongly toward white-guys, exclusively, sometimes religious, generally anti-federal government. Unfortunately, there is a parallel tendency toward racism, but the number of incidents in which members of such “clubs” attack blacks or others is very, very small… no way comparable to the numbers of blacks who attack everyone else, although never being charged with “racism.”
Militias have a bad name. Still, they are a part of the patriotic front that challenged and stopped the British in the 1770’s, and which became part of the “official” Continental Army under general George Washington. They were tough people, supported by equally tough wives and relatives, both farmers and merchants. How would they fit in to today’s social fabric and political landscape? They are referenced and promoted in our Constitution, but universally denigrated as, mainly, racist crackpots playing with guns.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…” What “state” were the framers talking about?
At the time of the fight for independence, the “states” were colonies: 13 separate entities with separate civil authorities appointed by the King or by his governors. To become sovereign states they had to both rid themselves of British governors and soldiers, who were the “police,” as it were, and then establish their own authorities with elections, appointments, codified laws and relatively independent courts. They had, also, to defend themselves. Automatically it became obvious that the colonies had to stand against the British together, else they’d be militarily quashed separately. Without much debate, they formed the Continental Congress and a sense of “nation” was established across fairly diverse colonies. A common enemy will do that.
Militias, essentially, were folded in to the individual colonies’ “Minutemen” forces and ultimately into the Continental Army, but not all of them. Many Militia fighters served key roles in interfering with British supplies and cavalry, harassing them like guerilla fighters, sometimes providing a flanking force when standing ranks faced off on battlefields. However, by the time of the war of 1812, militias were relatively unheard of. Citizens were still armed, but the U. S. Army and Navy then formed the military wherewithal of the new nation, calling up fighters from the states, each of whom represented their states as much as they did the United States.
The Constitution acknowledged and stipulated the importance of “militias,” and stipulated the right to keep and bear arms, but militias, themselves, faded from prominence.
By the end of the Civil War there was no question that the military forces were U. S. forces, and the federal government took on the costs and administration of veterans’ disabilities and welfare. States had police forces, but no longer raised their own “regulars” or trained or equipped them. Militias, if such can be identified at all, devolved into chapters of the Ku Klux Klan, constantly ginning up anger against negroes – a most despicable era of American history. Roughly speaking, the “Union” army and victorious states were “Republicans;” the former confederacy and the Ku Klux Klan itself, were “Democrats.” Democrats supported gun control laws, among other segregationist restrictions, to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. To maintain power and influence, the Klan, like revolutionary militias, had to constantly exaggerate the presence of a common enemy: free negroes.
“Militias,” now, are perceived as kooks. Any concept of forming armed forces to overthrow “the government,” is inherently illegal, and only a tiny fraction of Americans in either party think it’s either practical or legitimate. Yet the concept of non-governmental militias is Constitutional! Where could “militias” fit in? First, they’d have to meet standards. Their fellow citizens would have to trust them in terms of public safety and support of the Constitution, itself. Then what?
Somehow, some way, militias would have to coexist with police forces, both municipal and state. Participation in “Guardian” training and functions is a good place to start.
The Guardian Program, yet to be adopted anywhere, is designed to “legitimize” concealed carry, in a sense. The Constitution already protects the right to keep and bear arms – carry them around, in other words: to be individually armed. As a Guardian, the person who is willing to carry a firearm would also be trained in handling, safety and safe reaction in the presence of a crime or imminent criminal act. That person would also wear a “9-1-1” transponder that would identify and locate the individual and alert police forces to a possible active-shooter situation. Meanwhile, the guardian would take such action as practical to defuse a conflict or stop criminal action until police arrived.
Finally, the guardian would be shielded by special indemnification for legitimate and proper actions taken to stop criminal actions, whether on his or her own property or in public. “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” The truth of that observation is timeless. Establishing “Guardian” legislation enables the multiplication of police power and effectiveness at very low cost. It also provides vectors for evaluating gun owners and their family environments. If such gun owners formed the core of “militias,” governments and citizens could have confidence in their judgment and rationality.
Militias could also be held to ethical standards. Non-guardians who “joined up” would have to swear to certain behaviors and practices concerning gun ownership, handling and safety inside and outside of their homes. Militia organizations would be subject to fines for failing to adhere to ethical standards or for failing to reject or eject members who fail to do so. Such information would have to be shared with law-enforcement and become part of the unacceptable persons’ records. Most Militias would form through “Rod and Gun” clubs or hunting clubs or “Sportsmens’ Clubs.” Whether they could remain associated with those clubs would be a decision of the club, not of any government. How would a Militia function politically? How would the majority opinions of a Militia or dozens of Militias, enter into public policy or political power? Who would their “common enemy” be?
By definition, the “common enemy” would be our own federal, central government at the moment it is perceived as tyrannical. We have major political forces who are enthralled with government by experts – the bureaucratic state. Decision-making by and for individuals is anathema to these leftist “Progressives.” They are also anti-religious, increasingly opposed to free speech, virulently opposed to the second Amendment as written, and socialist in economics and social organization. Many members of a militia organized to monitor and resist – if not remove – tyranny in our central government, would count “Progressives” among the tyrants. A militia formed by progressives, for such there could be, though unlikely, would see themselves as saviors and conservatives as the common enemy.
Obviously, those most attracted to “militias” would be vilified and hated to greater degrees as members than they are, if at all, as relatively quiet, unobtrusive neighbors and co-workers.
Militias would tend to be somewhat secretive in their meetings and deliberations. Using common social media communications would leave them open to attack and interference. They will want to network – and perhaps coordinate – with other militias through a modern version of “Committees of Correspondence” as was done in Revolutionary times, when their discovery would have resulted in arrest and torture. If not actual secrecy, strict confidentiality would be essential to operation and growth of militias. But, how, short of taking up arms in fact, would constitutional militias influence political, governmental actions and direction?
Clearly they would have to be financially independent of government support or tax abatement or tax-free status on any places of meeting or practice / training. They would be subject to continuous hate from leftists and racists, for they would not be able to control militias from the inside. They would have to be scrupulous about opening membership to anyone who met their standards of behavior and ethics, which standards would include legal gun ownership, by definition. But, again, how would a militia influence political power? Could a militia sway the votes of others?
Communications, communications, communications. As with the Committees of Correspondence, militias would have to present factual and documented positions on the actions of government(s) and of elected or appointed officials. They would have to lay bare the nature of tyrannies large and small that made clear the un-representative nature of those in power including, most specifically, the expenditures of public monies. To do so would mean operating publishing businesses in both print and digital formats. Since a militia would not be a political “party” or be attempting to run candidates of its own, its publications would have to be both historical and current, and easily comprehensible as to how an issue/ topic either resisted tyranny of the state (or municipality) or fit into a tyrannical or potentially tyrannical action that threatened Constitutionally guaranteed rights or the freedoms of individuals.
Would anyone care if they did this work? Would citizens listen? Militias, like those that deposed tyranny at the inception of our country, have an obligation to pursue wisdom and to act upon it. The first militias had the wisdom of recognizing tyranny and of how to multiply their effectiveness in fighting it. It led them to wonderous courage and sacrifice. To fulfill that legacy, Constitutional militias must form with that same sort of commitment. Membership would not be a sport or part-time interest. Just as “the Left” maintains decades, if not centuries, of commitment to upending Biblical truths and models of behavior and governance based on individual freedom and responsibility, Militias must maintain a singular purpose to inform other Americans of the lies and evil of Socialism and Communism, backed up by the ability to risk everything to overthrow tyranny in defense of the American Way.
The creation of one militia, independent and uncorrupted, will bring forth many others, and their creation still more. We have learned after dozens of congresses and hundreds of representatives and senators, that the election of readily corruptible men and women who enter office with pathways of personal wealth and influence providing them all too many comforts and excuses for failure, has not – and will not – bring about the change needed to save and preserve our nation, our Constitution and our integrity. A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
Despite Prudence’ writings over the past 8 years, the nation has not adjusted to the models of governance and behavior she has carefully laid out. Upon the election of the odd Joe Biden and his basically anti-American administration, irritating, family and society-weakening tendencies have become policies, however illegitimately. Now, they’re crises – crises that threaten the survival of our nation and of Freedom, itself. Like the heart of Socialism in every sense, it derives from the avoidance of responsibility.
People say things like, “it’s a new day,” or “Times have changed.” Except “times” haven’t changed, people have. They’ve – we’ve – been taught new ideas to believe, habits to adopt, pleasures to revel in. We can look to a sudden change upon the murder of President John Kennedy. Most likely, the purpose of that assassination was political, not cultural. Kennedy had created powerful personal and political enemies. The abrupt change in culture and morals was an inadvertent one. Lyndon Johnson became president, federal civil rights legislation moved to center stage, for right reasons, but its adoption was made possible by the crassest political calculations. Inadvertently, for some but not all, the Civil Rights bill shifted morality into the metastasizing businesses of the federal administrative state and the court, where it has become enforced amorality.
Prior to the ‘60s, change in living standards and integration was happening due to improvements in individual beliefs in better moral codes… not fast enough, by a long shot, but improvement and progress were being made. The Civil Rights Act and the movement that brought it to fruition, inadvertently changed the nature of federal moral enforcement, even as it made long-overdue corrections to discrimination and segregation. Part of the federal “corrections” included elements of the “Great Society,” which federalized welfare and began the application of laws differently for different groups. This process, in all of its corrupt and socialist pieces, has rendered the federal government a soft tyrant which is hardening daily, while providing $Trillions of support for sub-tyrannies throughout the administrative state, particularly in Education.
Under the Constitution, the only moral adjustments can and should be made through equal justice: Equal protection under the law / equal application of the law. That canary escaped with the passage of the Great Society. Otherwise, our system works only if the vast majority of our citizens and residents share basic morals and mores, a claim that can no longer be made. Every institution that could reinforce the moral strength of our people, including schools and churches, are either hell-bent in the opposite direction, or bending a knee to popular immorality. For shame.
Freedom isn’t freedom without responsibility, it’s mere licentiousness. As responsibility began evaporating in the 1960’s, leftists accelerated, as part of civil rights and the Great society, their domination of public education and colleges of education, themselves. Like Mao’s “Long March,” it has taken decades – well-paid decades – to convert the role of education from conveyance of language, culture, skills, morals and history to our youth, to one of separation by race, class and, incredibly, gender. Everything happening fulfills the Communist Manifesto: separation from God and from Responsibility.
Churches and liturgies have proven to be much weaker than the years of bygone sacrifices to hold to and establish those faith communities would indicate. Just count the rainbow flags that some churches think override the teachings that brought them this far. They are proving every day that it is nearly impossible to convince others of ideas you, yourself, don’t believe. Simple economics can’t take the place of shared moral goodness.
America has been under moral attack for 60 years at a higher intensity than during its first 170 years. As the lessons of Genesis make clear, God’s Word (or, if you find that term more offensive than child abuse) moral truths, are always under attack here on Earth. Christianity has long been the primary target of such opposition, both from within and without.
For centuries those attacks tended to fail because the engine of responsibility kept working. People still, for the most part, paid the price for their own follies and failures. That is, until socialism replaced monarchy. Evil men – almost always men – grasped socialist ideas as a better way to control nations, economies and armies, but they ultimately fell: their bases were evil and so counter to human nature that they became insane. There has never been a government that created for itself political defenses that not only protected amorality and immorality, but learned to erode morality and, specifically, responsibility by individuals. Not until the U. S. federal (and state) administrative states. They’ve made a lot of “progress,” but they are “Progressives” by their own description. It has taken 60 years of “re-education” to bring us to an America facing the corrosive issues we do today.
What are the parameters of responsibility in matters of conception, pregnancy, abortion and birth?
Since the ‘60s we have replaced marriage as the cultural norm, with contraception, abortion, “hooking up,” and fatherless children. Responsibility has shifted to federal and state welfare programs. Women have become convinced that they need not choose a decent, committed and loving man who will provide for his family and children, and who will be in their lives through puberty and into adulthood – and this all before having sex! All they need is the sperm… and other men when they feel like it. It is the destruction of the American family and of children – especially boys: our vote-buying tax dollars of destruction, at work.
Along with hyper-sexualization of grade school children, lewd “Pride” parades and filth in school libraries, the left appears to be obsessed with fornication for “all genders.” To Democrats and other anti-Christian groups, fornication is a “right” as important to freedom as the First Amendment and all the rest. Except, without responsibility, it’s not a freedom at all. Enter abortion “rights.” Except abortion never was a “right,” per se; democratic decisioning at the state level is the “right” our Constitution guarantees.
What are the parameters of responsibility in matters of guns, ownership, self-defense and crime?
Gun owners quote the phrase, “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is part of the Second Amendment. Some like to ignore the stuff about the “A well regulated Militia…” But, as they may also choose to ignore, the amendment goes on to qualify the concept of a “militia,” as follows: “… being necessary to the security of a free State, …” Above all, the Bill of Rights amendments and their wordings are intensely Prudent in their purposes of preventing a tyrannical central government. Guaranteeing individual armament is crucial to that purpose. Clearly, by simple inference, mindful of why the Constitution was drafted and mindful of the horrendous sacrifices needed to permit its creation, is it not obvious that arming the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT had nothing whatsoever to do with the second amendment?
The only “militias” in the new nation’s experience were those formed by local communities and others to fight off the central government, perceived to be tyrannical toward the colonies. This aspect is never, ever acknowledged by that same federal government. Yes, gun ownership is crucial to individual self-defense, which that same federal – and some states’ – governments appear to discourage, if not deny, to its citizens, even as those governments purposely abdicate their contracted role of public safety. Had the British monarch established today’s same failed public policies, the justification for overturning his authority would have been far more popular.
There is a high expectation of responsibility for Constitutionally legal gun owners. As a definable demographic, legal gun owners are the least source of crime and, by far, the least source of crimes involving firearms. Yet this same group is always the target for restriction whenever a mentally or criminally defective person commits a “mass” shooting. Individual shootings and murders by gang members and drug dealers are of no particular concern to those who attack the rights of legal gun owners.
Maybe the concept of “militia” for legal gun owners is one that should be developed – not by any government, but by gun owners, themselves. “Whoa,” you might be saying. “That sounds like a mechanism for insurrection.”
Well, it’s not, but that threat should ALWAYS be on the mind of the Executive departments, and on the minds of voters. Sadly, and our own faults, the Congress should have it at top of mind, as well. Americans have the RIGHT to replace a tyrannical government with a representative one. One bright light – President Biden – during a press conference on gun control, uttered these non-sequiturs:
“Those who say the blood of lib- — ‘the blood of patriots,’ you know, and all the stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government. Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots. What’s happened is that there have never been — if you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
If these words had been uttered by someone who knew what he were talking about, they’d be chilling to Americans… perhaps, upon reflection, they are. That bozo is President. But the concept of “militia” is not far-fetched. Certainly it is not a federal force, nor should it be funded federally. “Militias” should be local, and the more local the better. In the most Prudent view, those gun owners who choose to carry concealed could be part of an anonymous police-trained force that has been earlier referenced as “Guardians.” (See: http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2016/05/30/the-guardian-program/) These same would be the nucleus of local militias. Leadership of each jurisdiction’s militia would be chosen by election within the membership, and thereby granted officers’ titles.
The nature of “Militia,” Constitutionally, is inherently anti-federal. No wonder this aspect of the Second Amendment is never discussed. “Nuclear weapons,” indeed. At the time of its adoption, the concept of “Militia” was understood as the forerunners of the Continental Army ultimately led by George Washington, named a General by the Continental Congress. To make the revolution work required the establishment of a governing body separate from the King and his governors and troops. It was all extra-legal and deemed illegal by the Crown. Militias were already fighting the Redcoats by the time the Continental Congress got down to the business of revolutionary government.
Americans are so reliant upon a steady and dependable government in Washington, that we find it hard to conceive of an autonomous civilian militia, yet that is precisely what the framers were talking about. The colonies had just fought off a tyrant and the framers were determined that we be just as prepared to fight off another, should the tyranny arise. There existed very little affinity for a central government because of the tendency toward tyranny by virtually all such entities. The ability of citizens to check the power of government provided all the justification needed for a Second Amendment. Armed crime in the streets was practically non-existent in 1789, so that wasn’t the reason for it; hunting was so crucial to provisioning of food and even clothing, that no one had to “allow” for it in the Constitution. What was crucial was preventing another tyranny from replacing the British Crown. The twenty-seven words of the Second Amendment guaranteed the ability of citizens to replace a tyrannical central government, and Ratification was impossible without it.
Today, unfortunately, discussion of the true reason for the 2nd Amendment brings forth accusations of sedition and insurrection, “fringe” white-supremacist grouping, and religious fundamentalism. Yet, it is the Constitution we have and that forms us, even now.
To the “left,” constitutionalism is suspect in all iterations. It challenges and exposes the sanctity of the STATE for the hollow proto-tyranny towards which it constantly slithers. The “establishment,” nearly as tyrannical as it could be – economically, morally, politically – is directly threatened by the Constitution, as are all tyrants, everywhere. Our own proto-tyrants fight to make the U. S. as much like every other nation as they can, while patriots recognize and try to enhance the exceptional nature of our constitutional Republic. “America first” sends chills down the spines of the permanently re-elected swine that wallow for decades at a time in the halls of Congress.
Americans have unique responsibilities, including defense and preservation of the Constitution; it is not the task of elected people, specifically, but of THE PEOPLE. The Constitution came not from government, but from “We, the People…” WE ordained it, which is that we gave it life. WE ratified it, but only when the Bill of Rights was appended to it, which is that we entered into a covenant with all who forever after held office upon swearing to Preserve and Defend it – the Presidents merely a handful of those. The ultimate defense and execution of the Constitution is our business: the People’s. We are obligated to preserve it, defend it and live according to its rights and responsibilities on behalf of every American citizen, now and forever after, as well as on behalf of every nation and people, who depend upon the United States to stand firmly against globalism, socialism and communism… and dishonesty. Let’s get busy.
