GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

News from the Swamp: Legislative blitz

First up: pork, the main course. The 2008 Appropriations defense bill contained 936 earmarks (and those were the ones disclosed) for a total of $5.1 billion, and while that’s $1.5 billion less than last year, it’s still a lot of pork to swallow. The top porkers are the top committee members—Sens. Ted Stevens (RINO-AK), under FBI investigation for corruption, with $189 million, Daniel Inouye (D-HI) with $183 million and Robert Byrd (D-KKK) with $166 million.

On a related note, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson notified Congress this week that the nation’s debt ceiling will be reached on 1 October. The limit is $8.965 trillion and Paulson is seeking quick action to raise it, lest the government shut down due to an inability to borrow money to pay off borrowed money. The House has already approved an increase, as has the Senate Finance Committee, raising the ceiling to $9.82 trillion. The ceiling has been raised five times during the Bush administration’s terms and we’re betting next year will be six.

The good items coming from Congress were actually things that didn’t pass.

Senate Republicans successfully blocked another Demo attempt to give congressional representation to Washington, DC. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “I opposed this bill because it is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional.” Only states are granted representation by the Constitution and it is certainly refreshing to find someone in Congress remembers that we have such a document. Of course, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promises to attempt the same circumvention again soon.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) attempted to attach The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to federal hate-crime law, to the Defense Department authorization bill by unanimous-consent agreement. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) objected, thereby thwarting the move. Kennedy blustered, “[T]he defense-authorization bill is dealing with the challenges of terrorism and the hate crimes issue… we’re talking about domestic terrorism, domestic terrorism!” Domestic terrorism, eh? You mean like driving off a bridge and leaving a woman to drown?

The Senate rejected a bill to give jihadi detainees access to federal courts to protest their detention. The motion fell short of cloture by four votes. As Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) noted, “Never has such an unprecedented legal right been granted to a prisoner of war or detainee.”

According to The Washington Post, “Unable to garner enough Republican support, Senate Democratic leaders said yesterday that they are abandoning a bipartisan effort to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq by next spring.” So defeat is defeated… for now. As for The Post, columnist Rich Galen responded, “[N]ote [The Post] writes that ‘Democratic leaders’ are ‘abandoning a bipartisan effort.’ If only Democratic leaders are in favor of the effort, how can it be ‘bipartisan?”’ A bill to cut funds for U.S. troops in Iraq was also rejected in the Senate, 70-28.

Finally, the Senate voted 72-25 to condemn the disgraceful ad run last week by MoveOn.org in The New York Times (“General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the books for the White House”). Not so surprisingly, 25 Demo senators couldn’t muster the courage to repudiate MoveOn. Hillary-for-President was one of them, as were Harry Reid, Carl Levin and Ted Kennedy. Presidential candidates Joe Biden and Barack Obama didn’t have the guts to vote at all.

In the Executive Branch: Mukasey for AG

President Bush selected longtime federal judge for the Southern District of New York Michael Mukasey as his nominee for Attorney General this week. Mukasey caught the President’s eye in particular because of his experience with national-security issues. Prior to 9/11 he handled the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind sheik” who plotted to blow up landmarks in New York City. In 2002, Mukasey drew the ire of Sen. Patrick Leahy and other weak-kneed Democrats by ruling that the federal government could continue to hold terror suspects under the material-witness law. It was also Mukasey’s decision to hold dirty-bomber suspect Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant in 2003, even though that was later overturned on appeal.

From Mukasey’s Padilla decision also came a rejection of the government’s attempt to prevent him from speaking with his lawyers, a ruling too richly celebrated by anti-Bush liberals at the time. Mukasey has been roundly hailed as a straight shooter who has a solid grasp of the law. Ted Olson, believed last week to be the top candidate for AG, said of Mukasey, “I think he’ll bring exactly what is needed to the Department of Justice.”

Of course, Olson himself would bring order to the Justice Department, but his conservative credentials were too impressive for Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy and many other Democrats. In short, Olson would likely have been a great Attorney General, just not a good nominee. He’s another liberal boogeyman and the President simply doesn’t have the political capital to push him through a hostile nominating process.

Mukasey, on the other hand, has drawn support from many quarters, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who suggested him as a consensus Supreme Court nominee in 2003. Right now, however, Schumer and Leahy are deciding whether to use President Bush’s good-will AG pick against him by tying the nomination hearings to their continued battle for Justice Department and White House documents from the Alberto Gonzales era.

From the Left: Top pols awash in funny money

While big-time Clinton bagman Norman Hsu awaits his fate in California on fraud charges, federal authorities in New York have launched an investigation into a Sikh family that donated to a variety of political causes. Singh Sabharwal, a prominent member of New York’s Sikh community, and two of his grown sons have been charged with mortgage fraud for buying real estate, reselling it to fictional buyers for inflated prices and taking out larger mortgages. The two children have been arrested and Sabharwal is currently being sought in India. Recipients include an exceedingly odd couple: Demo Sen. Chuck Schumer and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Meanwhile, the scope of Hsu’s donations has become public. Since 2004, Hsu donated $260,000 to Democrats Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein and Bill Richardson, et al. No word yet on whether they plan to return Hsu’s tainted cash as Hillary Clinton’s campaign did last week.

Campaign trail: Demos to dump ‘Bubba’?

A recent article on the lefty website Salon.com mused about whether Democrats have given up pursuing the white-male vote. Known as “bubba” or the “NASCAR dad” to leftist Yankee elites, white males have shrunk as an overall proportion of the Democrat presidential vote since 1988. From Michael Dukakis through John Kerry, Demo presidential candidates have averaged about 35 percent of the white-male vote, and in none of those elections, including Bill “Bubba” Clinton’s 1992 and 1996 pluralities, could the Democrats count on white males to put them over the top.

Salon points out that Democrat dominance of the black vote and other minority voting blocs offsets the loss of the white-male vote, leading to the conclusion that not only do Democrats need not pursue white males to achieve victory, but they may decide to ignore them altogether. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out after reviewing Salon’s hit piece, this new circumstance feeds nicely into the elite liberal view that white males are the root of all evil. Of course, we in our Tennessee editorial shop can’t imagine any self-respecting, freedom-loving, God-fearing American of any color or gender voting for the likes of Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi.

From the ‘Court Jesters’ File: Dan Rather

As everyone knows, former CBS News anchor and managing editor Dan Rather lost his long held chair in March 2005 after running that infamous “fake but accurate” “60 Minutes” hit piece on President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service just before the 2004 election. Rather now has a weekly show, “Dan Rather Reports,” on the HDNet channel. Who knew? (The show’s dozen or so viewers do give rave reviews.) It appears, though, that Gunga Dan is getting restless with all his free time and has filed a lawsuit against his former employer. Rather claims that CBS made him a scapegoat and fired him to “pacify” the White House. As if CBS ever gave a hoot about this White House. Explaining the suit, which seeks $50 million in punitive damages and another $20 million in compensatory damages, Rather said, “The only punishment they understand is the money.” All we can say, Danny Boy, is, “Courage.”

NATIONAL SECURITY

(Green)span of Influence

Leftmedia brain donors have cracked the code on the shocking “reason behind the war” in Iraq: Bush wanted their oil! At least, this is the version The Washington Post’s Bob “All the President’s Men” Woodward would have us swallow, based on his dissection of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s new book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World. Citing the Greenspan memoir’s comment that Saddam Hussein’s expulsion had been “essential” to securing world oil supplies, Woodward and a host of black-helicopter conspiracists leapt on this comment as the “smoking gun” proving that the war was “about oil.” Oil was certainly a part of it, so the Chairman’s seat at MOTO (Masters of the Obvious) is secure through the balance of 2007.

Among other reasons, protecting one’s access to energy, the lifeblood of any country—especially highly developed ones such as the U.S.—is a critical national interest, including protecting that access through military means, if necessary. Nonetheless, note that Greenspan denied oil was the only—or even the primary—reason for U.S. intervention in Iraq as the Left so often claims. Even if it were, a fundamental difference exists between protecting U.S. access to energy and plundering another nation’s oilfields. Naturally, leftists accuse the U.S. of plunder, ignoring the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, not least of which is the fact that Iraq, not the U.S. , controls Iraq’s oilfields. Admittedly, Saddam’s ouster did benefit the U.S. by providing assured access to Iraq’s oil. Even so, the Blame-Americrats who attribute “cheap oil” as the leading motive behind committing U.S. troops into combat should have their carbon footprints “minimized”… with extreme prejudice.

This week’s ‘Braying Jackass’ award

“Are we fighting for the American oil companies, for Mobil and Exxon? And they are making these enormous profits because of access to oil over there… Should we put Exxon signs up over Arlington Cemetery and Mobil signs up there, like they have at baseball stadiums?” —MSNBC’s Chris Matthews

Warfront with Jihadistan: Syrian mischief

Recent headlines from the Middle East have been troubling, to say the least. The UK Times Online reports, “Israelis ‘blew apart Syrian nuclear cache’.” The Israelis have been keeping a close eye on their northern neighbors and uncovered evidence that Syria had purchased nuclear material from North Korea. It is possible the final destination was Iran. Axis of Evil, anyone? The Israelis executed an air strike on a bunker believed to have contained the nuclear material, though the two respective governments are strangely quiet. Still, Tehran has taken notice. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad sent his nephew to Syria to “assess the damage.”

Meanwhile, the Jerusalem Post reports, “Dozens died in Syrian-Iranian Chemical Weapons Experiment.” That occurred in July when a joint team was mounting a chemical warhead on a Scud missile and an explosion put a damper on the festivities. The story saw the light of day just this week.

As for Syria, the nation was just voted co-chair of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the international organization tasked with preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Did someone say “fox” and “henhouse”? We continue to maintain that Saddam’s WMD were sent through Syria to southern Lebanon’s heavily fortified Bekaa Valley prior to the launch of OIF in March 2003. Furthermore, Syria and Iran are joining hands to fight the U.S. in a proxy war in Iraq. Our response hasn’t been too strong yet.

Speaking of Iran, President Ahmadi-Nejad will be in New York next week to address the United Nations General Assembly. He wanted to place a wreath at the site of the World Trade Center while here, no doubt in honor of the hijackers, not the victims. His request was denied. On the other hand, Ahmadi-Nejad was invited to speak at Columbia University, a school which by the way doesn’t even allow our nation’s Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) on campus.

Blackwater banned from Iraq

Blackwater USA is one of many agencies that provide an estimated 30,000 security contractors in Iraq, and the company is responsible for security for all top American officials there. (Four Blackwater contractors were murdered and mutilated in Fallujah in 2004.) On 16 September 2007, Iraqi insurgents attacked a State Department convoy that had Blackwater security elements as the guard force. The ambush consisted of an IED and other armed shooters. Eight Iraqi civilians were killed in the ensuing firefight. The Iraqi government’s response was to blame Blackwater for the deaths and ban them from further operation in Iraq.

Two questions are in order: First, why did a 20-minute gun battle take place in the streets of Baghdad and not get an Iraqi military or police response? Second, why are the deaths blamed on Blackwater and not the insurgents? Furthermore, since women and children are often insurgents themselves, it would be difficult for the Iraqi government to prove that the dead were innocent civilians.

A report on the incident by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior says that Blackwater guards were not ambushed, but that they fired first at a car that did not heed a police officer’s call to stop. The Iraqi report also claims 20 civilian deaths. Notably, The Washington Times reports, “Iraq’s Ministry of Interior, which has been found to run secret detention centers, has a reputation for being corrupt. It is also closely linked to Sheik [Moqtada] al-Sadr, who is known for his opposition toward U.S. forces.” Seems to answer the controversy, doesn’t it?

In the end, the consequences of the Iraqi government’s action may be increased attacks on security contractors now that jihadis have been successful in running one out of town.

Profiles of valor: Army Lt. Brennan Goltry

On the evening of 2 February 2007, Army Lt. Brennan Goltry was commanding the second truck of a five-vehicle convoy in Samarra, Iraq, when enemy insurgents fired on the lead humvee, crippling it and wounding its gunner. After directing his driver to position his vehicle as a shield for the injured soldier, Goltry opened his door amid a barrage of incoming rounds and returned fire. He sustained two gunshot wounds to his left leg. Undeterred, he continued shooting until the enemy was neutralized. Disregarding his own injuries, Goltry rallied his men and countered the ambush with an offensive. His platoon repelled the enemy, securing strategic positions and capturing one enemy combatant. When a medical vehicle sought to evacuate Goltry, he refused, choosing instead to remain with his troops.

Lt. Goltry is quick to redirect any praise for his actions toward his soldiers: “I’m real proud of my men,” he says. “They fight real hard for me and they’ve saved my [rear] more than once.” He terms the events “just another day.” Indeed, fellow officer Capt. Buddy Ferris notes, “[T]his is the type of stuff he does every day. It’s not the first time he’s been shot, and it’s not the first time he charged the enemy.”

For his actions, now-Captain Goltry was awarded the Silver Star, the Combat Infantryman Badge and two Purple Hearts. He is expected to receive a third Purple Heart for injuries sustained during an insurgent attack on 6 May.

On the immigration front: DREAM maker

After the bruising defeat last spring of a “comprehensive” immigration bill that would have granted amnesty to illegal aliens, members of Congress, apparently hoping that U.S. citizens are distracted by the new fall TV season, have quietly introduced a number of smaller bills that appear to be an attempt to pass an amnesty bill piece by piece. This week, the Senate is expected to vote on a bill proposed by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) entitled the “Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors” (DREAM) Act. This bill would allow illegal aliens who entered the U.S. before age 16 and have lived here for at least five consecutive years, and who claim to be enrolled in a post-secondary school, to receive immediate “conditional” legal status. Hmmmm, illegal acts merit legal status?

Over the next six years, the “legal” illegals would have to spend two years in college or the military, after which they could become legal permanent residents, a major step toward U.S. citizenship. Attempting to win support for the bill, Durbin dropped a mandate for in-state tuition rates and is proposing an age limit to cut the number of “legal” illegals.

From the Left Coast, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) hopes to introduce an AgJobs program, allowing more than a million illegal aliens to gain legal status provided they do farm work for a certain number of days each year and allowing those who meet the criteria to apply for legal permanent-resident status after five years. Again, illegal acts merit legal benefits. Some Republicans are trying to keep the immigration debate focused on enforcement measures, and rightly so. The American people may have to rise up again and have their voices heard as they have before to prevent amnesty from quietly entering through the back door.

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

Regulatory Commissars: HillaryCare 2.0

Hillary Clinton unveiled her ironically titled “American Health Choices Plan” this week, estimating it would cost taxpayers a mere $110 billion a year (nothing like underestimating) to insure 47 million Americans who lack health insurance. Overlooked, of course, is the stubborn fact that 45 percent of that purported 47 million uninsured obtain insurance in less than four months, and that 17 million can afford health insurance but choose not to purchase any. Oh, and then there are the illegal aliens (i.e. not Americans) counted in that number. As with all other schemes concocted by liberals, Hillary’s plan implements a massive federal-government intrusion into Americans’ private healthcare decisions, as well as a tax hike for “the rich,” some of whom might qualify for aid with the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP).

Further details of HillaryCare 2.0 include additional coercion of the private-health-insurance market in the form of HillaryCare 1.0’s guaranteed-issue requirement, a prohibition against excluding pre-existing conditions, and community rating, all of which doomed the private market in every state unfortunate enough to have enacted them. The proposal would require everyone to obtain insurance, possibly by denying them their constitutional right to employment if they are unable to prove they have coverage. (So much for Hillary being “pro-choice.”) It mixes tax incentives and a sliding scale of aid based upon income levels, and, if tax penalties for failing to provide insurance are lower than the cost of providing insurance for employees, employers might begin dumping health plans. The most notable feature of Hillary’s plan is the dramatic expansion of the number of persons with government coverage by using artificially low premiums.

Repackaged attempts to expand government coverage of persons at the expense of market solutions should continue to be thwarted by freedom-loving conservatives. Apparently, the only lesson learned by Mrs. Clinton is how to recycle the same, tired anti-market proposals of HillaryCare 1.0. Indeed, this entire operating system should be canned.

Europe’s continued economic suicide

A recent ruling against Microsoft by Europe’s second-highest court has raised the possibility that other technology firms may be in Europe’s sights as well. The ruling upheld and enforced the court’s earlier decisions intended to restrict the market dominance of Microsoft’s operating system. While we at The Patriot are somewhat divided in our appreciation for Microsoft’s work, we agree that government regulation to curb Microsoft’s influence harms both consumers and the economy. As a Justice Department official recently pointed out, the effect of such antitrust actions, “rather than helping consumers may have the unfortunate consequence of harming consumers by chilling innovation and discouraging competition.” In the stagnant European economy, punishing successful businesses is pretty close to the worst option possible.

In a free economy, the influence a company wields is the result of millions of individual consumers making the free decision to use the company’s products. When governments attack a successful company, they are in reality limiting the right of consumers to make those decisions for themselves. If consumers decide they don’t like Microsoft—as many have—they are free to support its competitors. In fact, Microsoft’s influence is already weakening, not from government regulation, but because of—surprise, surprise—increasing competition from other technology companies such as Apple and Google.

Judicial Benchmarks: Justice in San Francisco

In the halls of justice on the right: A federal judge in San Francisco ruled this week that global-warming-injury lawsuits are not under the constitutional purview of the courts. Judge Martin Jenkins’ decision stemmed from a suit filed last year by the state of California against six major auto manufacturers. Officials from the Land of Fruits and Nuts contended that cars produced by the companies were responsible for more than 30 percent of carbon-dioxide emissions in California and more than 20 percent nationwide, posing a “public nuisance.”

In response, Judge Jenkins ruled that the court’s entering the global-warming fray “would require an initial policy determination of the type reserved for the political branches of government.” Additionally, Judge Jenkins wrote that the court was unwilling to penalize the companies “for doing nothing more than lawfully engaging in their respective spheres of commerce.” Judicial restraint from a Clinton appointee in the Golden State? The miraculous defined.

CULTURE

Around the nation: Maryland and Massachusetts

The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, ruled this week that a state law banning same-sex marriage does not deny constitutional rights. Nineteen homosexuals had sued in an attempt to have the law overturned by judicial diktat. The decision cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because it deals strictly with state law. Conservatives and liberals in the state assembly are now headed for a showdown—liberals want to legalize same-sex marriage, while conservatives want a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

To the north, in the Massachusetts haven for same-sex marriage, faculty and staff of Hampshire College gathered at the school president’s home for an old-fashion back-to-school bash, only to find that they were attending the marriage of the president to his long-time homosexual partner. “This is our way of celebrating Hampshire College, which so warmly welcomed us as a couple when I was named president in 2005, and of celebrating the state of Massachusetts and all those who helped it become a pioneer in recognizing and upholding the right of gay couples to be legally married,” gushed President Ralph Hexter. How charming.

Faith and Family: Sexual orientation changeable?

A recently released three-year study contends that it is possible for homosexuals to become heterosexual again, much to the consternation of the homosexual-rights lobby. While the current stance of the American Psychological Association (APA) is that homosexuals cannot change their orientation, the APA hasn’t always supported that position. Prior to the 1970s the APA held that homosexuality was a pathological disorder. They were correct. Their change in position was not based on honest science, but rather on their fear of radical activists. Thus, many psychologists, doctors and homosexual activists claim that the conclusion drawn from this latest study is false; they argue that homosexuality is intrinsic and homosexuals cannot change.

The activists have two primary goals. The first is to destroy the traditional family model, and the second is to undermine churches, both by promoting homosexuality as a cultural norm, even though only three percent of the population are self-identified homosexuals. By denying the real cause of homosexuality, which is the breakdown of the family and children’s problems identifying with both parents, leftists are effectively using homosexuality as a means to further their attempt to uproot the traditional family.

For more information, read Mark Alexander’s essay, “Gender Identity, the Homosexual Agenda and the Christian Response.”

In other news, the Catholic Church in Sacramento is suing a man who had filed suit, and then withdrew it, for being abused as a child by a priest. An attorney for the diocese said, “We believe this is barred by the statute of limitations.” Apparently, there are no limitations on suing a victim… The Illinois legislature attempted to pass a bill allowing similar suits to be filed for a period of two years, even if the statute of limitations had expired. After vehement protests from the Catholic Church, the bill was gutted and dropped.

The Frontiers of Science: 500 ‘deniers’

From the American Heritage Dictionary: “Scientific Method—The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.”

Attention Al Gore and the Global Warming Lunatic Fringe: Read and remember the previous definition. To date, 500 scientists have applied the scientific method to your theory and found that it fails to produce repeatable results when compared to actual observations. Once again we find that correlation is not causation. These scientific professionals have published their findings in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature, Science and Geophysical Review Letters, and while these publications may not have the circulation of Time, Newsweek or People, they do have a much stronger affiliation with accuracy and full disclosure.

Why are so many other scientists attempting to stifle dissent with their mantra that evil Americans are responsible for global warming? We at our humble shop would like to offer a mantra of our own, albeit plagiarized from Al Gore’s party: “Follow the Money.” Modern liberalism is dedicated to wealth redistribution. The global-warming fear mongers know that liberals are more apt to distribute tax revenues for research at their institutions and seek to ingratiate themselves to secure future funding. Climate cycles with a 1,500-year duration are the perfect foil, since the average voter can’t remember when Pearl Harbor was attacked and they certainly can’t recall when it ever got this hot. The scientific method has weighed Al Gore in the balance and found him full of hot air. Another source of climate change, perhaps?

Village Academic Curriculum: UC tree-squatters

When University of California, Berkeley, officials announced plans last year to destroy a 1923 landscaping project to make way for a new $125-million athletic-training center, local tree huggers leaped into action. The landscaping project to be destroyed is a small grove of oak trees that has been occupied by protesters since December. University officials are suing them for posing a danger to the neighborhood and themselves. The tree-sitting protest escalated last month when the university encircled the grove with a chain-link fence. Recently, about 40 members of a group styling itself as the “Free Speech/Free Tree Student Coalition” scaled the fence to deliver supplies to their tree-squatting brethren. Then they clasped hands and pranced about gaily until confronted by campus police. “For us, it is a sacred place. We’re willing to be arrested for what we believe in,” a 33-year-old undergraduate opined. “We will not back down. Never!” declared another. Nonetheless, about half of the students scattered like leaves after being told that they could be arrested, and 21 were taken into custody.

And last…

Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers, a Democrat, has just taken the frivolous lawsuit to a new level: He is suing God. Chambers’ suit seeks an injunction against God for causing “fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like.” How about charging Chambers with asinine alliteration? His real reason for filing the suit, he says, is to prevent the state senate from passing bills aimed at limiting laughable lawsuits. “The Constitution requires that the courthouse doors be open, so you cannot prohibit the filing of suits,” chimes Chambers. “Anyone can sue anyone they choose, even God.” Somehow, we don’t think this proves him right. As The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto teased, “The good thing about suing God, too, is that you’re unlikely to lose at trial. Eventually He always settles out of court.”

Editor’s Note

The citation for the Monday Brief “Foundation” quote was incorrect. It was from a 1789 draft of President George Washington’s First Inaugural Address, not from the address itself as noted.

The full quote is as follows (from the national archives):

George Washington, Draft First Inaugural Address, April 1789

“The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institution may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest purposes. Should, hereafter, those incited by the lust of power and prompted by the Supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchm[en]t can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other.”

Veritas vos Liberabit—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot’s editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families—especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)