Thursday Column
Retreat Is NOT an Option!
Join our Patriot Ranks and FIGHT!
"There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away. There is a time to fight, and that time has now come." --Peter Muhlenberg (1776)

In October of 1941, amid the darkest of days in human history, against seemingly insurmountable odds, Sir Winston Churchill issued this charge: "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large or petty -- never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."
The Greatest Generation, which lived through those days if they did not perish to sustain Essential Liberty for our generation, were the last Americans to confront evil face-to-face on a global scale. And confront it they did, albeit at immeasurable human cost. We are fortunate that some of the survivors from that generation are among our Patriot Post ranks; they write us daily to voice their grave concerns about the current domestic threat to American Liberty that awaits their grandchildren's children.
Amazingly, though they now are in their eighth and ninth decades of life, these old warriors invariably note that they are ready to take up arms again today in keeping with their hard-won devotion to Liberty! If, given the wisdom of age, they understand the current threat to Liberty and are ready to fight, then there is no excuse for complacency or resignation from anyone in the generations after them.
However, in the two weeks since the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate portion of the so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," too many conservatives have all but thrown up their hands in preparation for retreat to their bunkers. Too many have given in under duress of the apparent overwhelming might of the imperial executive, Barack Hussein Obama, now that even the Supreme Court appears to have surrendered to his socialist regime.
It is that unfortunate lack of fight that distinguishes mere conservatives from today's ranks of American Patriots.
I encourage conservatives and Patriots alike to pause for a minute and allow me to offer a perspective on Chief Justice John Roberts' enigmatic ruling -- a perspective that differs from the conventional reasoning that resulted in the condemnation of Roberts by commentators and political pundits. While I certainly agree that Roberts grossly violated his sacred oath to faithfully uphold our Constitution, I conclude he did so very deliberately in a dangerous gambit in support of our Constitution -- which is to say, he has not departed for the Dark Side.
My first response to a non sequitur like Roberts' decision, where a conclusion does not logically follow a well-established premise, is to determine what premise it does follow.
In this case, since Roberts' decision wholly departed from everything we know about him as a jurist and from the erudite opinions of his constructionist colleagues on the court, his conclusion must be based on an alternative premise. While some have asserted that the chief justice's motive was to reset the limits on the Commerce Clause, I believe his overarching motive was much more blunt, and rendered for philosophical reasons that, in Roberts' frame of reference, supersede the constraints of his oath. Justice Antonin Scalia said as much in an after-interview: "I haven't had a falling out with Justice Roberts. [Justices] vote the way they do because they have their own judicial philosophy."
In his decision, Roberts concluded, "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices," and I think therein is the premise for his decision. Roberts is forcing what our Constitution's author, James Madison, called in Federalist No. 44 "a remedy obtained from the people."
While I certainly do not endorse Roberts' ruling, I believe that he decided in favor of ObamaCare with the complicity of his constructionist brethren, associate justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. I believe he did so as a call to arms, because he understands, as do we, that if Obama is re-elected, the full institution of Democratic Socialism is inevitable, and restoring constitutional integrity by way of ballots rather than bullets will be further diminished during a second term in which Obama may well appoint two or three more justices.
Roberts' reclassification of the ObamaCare penalties as a tax and tossing it back to the electorate slipped a couple of aces into Republicans' presidential and congressional hands to increase the odds of defeating Obama. It sets up a full repeal of ObamaCare, a centerpiece of the Republicans presidential and congressional platforms (as confirmed by the House vote this week), and supports the case against Obama's socialist endeavor to tax and spend the nation out of a recession, which has resulted in the very real probability of prolonged "stagflation" similar to that of the Carter years.
Further, Obama's plan to sunset the tax cuts enacted by George Bush on income, capital gains, dividends and death, across all five brackets, combined with the ObamaCare taxes set to begin in 2013, will result in a $494 billion tax increase, the biggest increase in history by any measure, which even Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke characterized as a "massive fiscal cliff" leading to an economic abyss.
Moreover, inadvertently exposing his own socialist political cards when arguing for the next round of so-called "stimulus spending," Obama claimed, "The private sector is doing fine," and went on to suggest the real focus needs to be adding more government jobs. This socialist sick-think mirrors that of Senate Leader Harry Reid, who said of the last round of stimulus spending, "It's very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine. It's the public-sector jobs where we've lost huge numbers, and that's what this legislation is all about."
The bottom line here is that the premise for Roberts' ruling does not warrant the retreat that too many conservatives are contemplating, or have already begun.

For more than three decades, beginning with the Reagan Revolution, I have joined with tens of millions of American Patriots who have endeavored on many fronts to thwart the advance of tyranny over Liberty. Since Obama's ascension to power, additional Patriots have coalesced around our First Principles in defense of Liberty.
However, never before in my lifetime has the threat of tyranny been greater than in the present day, and for no other reason than too many conservatives, particularly those with means, have given up the fight, leaving a thin line of Patriots to hold the line.
Suggesting that the next presidential election will be "the most critical in our lifetime" is not seasonal campaign hyperbole. Indeed, it will be the most important since our nation's founding. This election will determine if Liberty can peacefully be restored, or if our nation is irrevocably locked into the fatal "Cycle of Democracy," due to the lethargy and complacency of its people. Indeed, it will be a plebiscite on the American Revolution.
If you are among our Patriot ranks reading these words, you are not likely to be among the conservatives who have resigned in belief that the last battle in the campaign to restore the integrity of our Constitution has been fought. Granted, some major battles have been lost, but the war is NOT over. Thus, it falls upon our shoulders to rally our brothers and sisters back to the front by any and every means, and to seize the opportunity in the current crisis. As Churchill wrote, "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
It is past time for all conservatives to form a unified front in order to ensure that Obama is defeated, that the House majority is fortified with additional conservatives, and that a Senate majority is restored. Patriots should admonish those who would retreat in the face of the considerable adversity we now face, and equally those who would foment disunity among our ranks with their incessant complaints and defeatist mindset. Such division greatly weakens our front lines.
Thomas Jefferson observed, "Very many and very meritorious were the worthy Patriots who assisted in bringing back our government to its republican tack. To preserve it in that, will require unremitting vigilance."
That vigilance cannot succeed without a unified front.
329 Comments
Bob McKune in Rolla, MO
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:19 PM
If The Patriot, and those of us who read and agree, do not fight despotism and "wealth redistribution," who will?
Bill in Leawood, KS
Friday, July 13, 2012 at 2:17 PM
Roberts started the cave and Romney continues it. George R was brainwashed, George HW had Souter and George W has Roberts.
Patriot Minuteman in Massachusetts
Friday, July 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM
Stop your ranting and make damn sure Romney gets elected.
Don Barker in Wenham, MA
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:25 PM
Like Mr. Churchill, I shall never give in, never retreat. I will celebrate my 60th birthday in October, but even with all my health issues, I would again take the Oath of Enlistment to defend Liberty to the last breath and last drop of blood. This Nation must be preserved in Liberty for all CITIZENS against despots and commies, whether they be in Congress, the Supreme Court or the White House.
Jeri L in Boston, MA
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:26 PM
I happen to agree and on that note I will add a quote from my favorite president and one that I believe applies to the recent ruling of the Supreme Court. We will be the soldiers of our destiny if and only if we choose to continue on as those in the past have.
~Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
Lyle Vandagriff in texas
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:26 PM
While the individual mandate received the focus of attention in the law suit, the Supreme Court should have known that a decree that the tiny piece of the bill was constitutional would lead the public to believe the entirety to be. Both houses failed to read this bill as is now famous that it must be passed to find out what was in it. The Supreme Court did not rule on the whole bill because they, too, did not read it in entirety. It was not crafted by the members of the House or Senate but by the Apollo Group and Tides Foundation among others with an agenda backed by George Soros. The packaging and process of putting this bill through by deceiving the American people is a treasonous conspiracy by all involved and is punishable under the law. The people will not forgive those found responsible and the truth will come to light eventually.
P M in Prescott AZ
Saturday, July 14, 2012 at 11:27 AM
"The packaging and process of putting this bill through by deceiving the American people is a treasonous conspiracy by all involved and is punishable under the law." I am sorry but the law has now been subverted. That IS what the Supreme Court just did. They ignored the Constitution! Game over! There is no more rule of law in this country. The law is whatever they want to make it of it just as in any Marxist/Communistic state! Sorry, but you have to have the right mindset now or you will simply wake up and find they have come to take you away.
BJ Cassady in Caldwell, Kansas
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:27 PM
There is a time to pray and I have prayed. There is a time to vote and I have voted. There is a time to be called to Action with a large A. This is that time. If things do not go well in November, if Liberty is not restored, we should (as millions, as tens of millions) take to the streets and take our country back). It is our right, it is our country our land, our future. I am not advocating violence, just change. Carry placards, raise your voice. If 50,000,000 marched what would happen? I dare say change..
bikerbill in Texas
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Posting my opinion here is preaching to the choir; the fact that I read The Patriot Post should indicate that I agree with the Post on the dire straits we face if Obama is re-elected. We need to be getting our opinions out to those who DON'T agree with us on the danger to our liberty from a second Obama term. Write your newspapers, talk to those who don't share our concerns and convince them they need to rethink their positions, contribute if you can to Republican candidates. This is an election we HAVE to win. If we don't, as President Reagan warned, we will be telling "our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States, where men were free."
P M in Prescott AZ
Saturday, July 14, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Obama WILL hold on to the office. There is no doubt about that. It will not be a legal election but none of that matters any more. Law does not matter any more. Get ready, and we will see what we can do about this but it will not happen at the ballot box!
Paul Carter in Delta, CO
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:28 PM
In your writings please do not forget those of us that went into the service and were part of the occupations and then fought in Korea. I spent 31 months in Korea during the HOT war. We also are ready to fight again for our freedoms. As are the Viet Nam vets. We feel that any vet that votes democrat is a trator to this great nation of the United States of America.
Editor's Reply:
david marsshall in concho, az.
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:55 PM
BRAVO ZULU AND ROGER THAT!!! this soon to be 71 year old vietnam vet will be there with you. and i DARE THEM TO BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!
Ragweed in West Virginia
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 1:36 PM
DITTO on that!!!
P M in Prescott AZ
Saturday, July 14, 2012 at 12:02 PM
I am here with you too. There is no way I will go silently. I will fight for my freedom given to me by God.
Rod in Galt's Gulch
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:29 PM
Great essay as always, Mark.
My concern is that with so many lemmings beholden to the government for handouts of various kinds, that we will have great difficulty finding people capable of the independent thought and critical reasoning to understand that:
-- this is NOT about race, but it IS about effective policy that truly benefits the people and society -- socialist systems have failed everywhere they have been tried -- Keynesian economic models (economies proppedf up by government spending) are an abject failure and unsustainable -- a pro-business model is the only one successful at promoting opportunity, liberty, freedom and prosperity for the people -- this country was founded on limited government aimed at individual property rights and individual liberty and opportunity, not outcome
And I could go on.
The proof was in a speech by Romney at the NAACP where he vowed to repeael Obamacare and was booed: Clearly the people in attendance were incapable of critical thinking or understanding economic theory and they certainly were buying into the baseless factless propaganda spewed a feckless democratic establishment.
But I am called to arms, Sir.
Thank you!
Cheryl in South Carolina
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 1:09 PM
Of course he was booed; the only economic theory those people "understand" is GIMMEE!!!
FED Up in Philly PA
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM
Amen Brother! How can it be that 98% of the Black Population voted for Obama?
It is sad to say, but I begin to question the intelligence of Black Americans.
Voting for a Black Man, just because he is Black, is moronic. Unless of course, the 98% want Socialism, then I could understand.
So in the future, I will display the same idiotic behaviors - I will only vote for a White, Anglo-Saxon American, because they look like me.
I'm sorry, but I will call them out for what they really are. The hell with political correctness!
Oh and by the way for those of you who will say I am a bigot and racist, tell that to my interracial children, Black and Asian cousins, and mixed racially made-up friends and family. They will laugh at you!
Susan P in Peoria, IL
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 6:05 PM
What the main stream media failed to tell you about Romney's NAACP speech is that those same people who booed his remarks about repealing ObamaCare also gave Romney a "standing ovation" at the end of his speech. There are many of our dark skinned neighbors who are NOT easily led by the lies of the Socialist in chief.
Bob Heisser in Littleton, CO
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:29 PM
Excellent!
Michael Oberndorf, RPA in New Orleans
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Surrender is NEVER an option. Remember and take to hearty the words of Patrick Henry. I will die a free American, rather than live as some 2-bit tyrant's slave.
Jeff in Montana
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:31 PM
Lately I have been asking myself, when does the breaking point come that people say enough is enough and take back this country? We need to win this election and many more to get good conservatives/libertarians in office to make many needed changes. If this does not happen, when does the populace rise up to crush this tyranny???
Kathy in West Texas
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:31 PM
I just read a story in which Paul Ryan stated that 85% of Obamacare can be repealed through reconciliation. Since it is a tax/mandate and has a fiscal impact, taxing and spending, it only takes a simple majority to get rid of it.
That's the best news I've heard in a long time, so never give up!!
William F. Brna in Monongahela, PA
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution states: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..." Since the Supreme Court has found the Affordable Care Act to be a tax, it should have originated in the House. Since it did not it is, by that very fact, in violation of this clause of the Constitution and need not be repealed.
Holmes Simons in Tampa
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 1:18 PM
You are absolutely correct. The question in my mind is, "Why is no legislator raising holy hell about it?".
Diane in TX
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Ahh, but the Senate cheated - they took a bill passed by the House ("Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009"- Wikipedia) and stripped everything out of it, then put the ACA bill into the house wrapper, and sent it back to be "reconciled". That should've told everyone it was a tax then!
Tom H. in Rock Island, IL
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:33 PM
I will disagree with Mr. Alexander's statement , "The Greatest Generation...were the last Americans to confront evil face-to-face on a global scale." This would be a surprise to my father (Korea - US Army) and my son (Iraq - US Army). Unless, of course Communism was not and Islamofacism is not a global threat that the United States has/is fighting on many fronts.
Editor's Reply:
wjm in Colorado
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:51 PM
I agree, and Islam is the greatest global threat since Marxist ideology.
Holmes Simons in Tampa
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 1:22 PM
@wjm: Followed closely by Goober, the chocolate colored Muslim nut, and his band of Merry People.
Editor's Reply:
Holmes Simons in Tampa
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM
That was not my intent. I apologize. Please delete my comment if you like.
Peterill in New York, NY
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM
Let me try Mr Editor....Let me try!!!! (Holmes is an amateur at this) OK...I am ready: The Goober is former Pres Bush (war criminal), the chocolate covered Muslim nut is Alan West (also a war criminal - and not really sure if he is a Christian), and the band of Merry People are the ignorance is bliss bunch on Fox. Did I win??
Editor's Reply:
Ken in Tyler in Tyler, Texas
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 10:44 PM
Yep; the Wingnut Award
Archie in Oak Island, N.C.
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 4:12 PM
And I am with you friend.
Peterill in New York, NY
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM
That is so sweet of you Archie! I think you are cool also!!
Mass Militiaman in Massachusetts
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 1:38 PM
I am sure that Alexander is referencing "World Wars" as distinguished from regional wars, and thus the reference to Churchill. Obvious The Patriot Post equally honors all vets.
JackNW in Washington
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:35 PM
You may simply be over-analyzing. C.J. Roberts has never been a strict constructionalist / original intent jurist.
Why is no one looking at the political pressures being applied? [inside the beltway]
From BHO's overt treat this spring - implying he would make the Supreme Court a political issue in the fall campaign if they did not rule in favor of O-Care - to Nancy P's funding dribbles, the court is under attack.
Who would BHO appoint as Chief Justice (unprecedented stripping of Roberts' title) if he decided against the Supremes? What would the salaries of the Supremes be if Nancy P got another opportunity to create the budget? Roberts has been on record as saying the Supreme lawyers are vastly underpaid compared with their brethern in the private sector (and even with their brethern in academia).
Just an alternative view.
Jeri L in Boston, MA
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 2:19 PM
With all due respect Jack, Roberts knew what he was getting into when he accepted this position from President Bush. If he thought at that time he could not handle the fire, he should have said no. And shame on him if he did crumble to political pressure because that is NOT what he is supposed to. I like to believe he sent us a message that our voting could be the death of us. It is ours to deal with.