GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Patriots Day 2008

“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, ‘What should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”—Samuel Adams

On 19 April 1775, the brave Patriots at Lexington and Concord fired the opening volley for American liberty. Today we honor them, as well as those Patriots who continue in that tradition, shouldering the burden of American liberty, particularly those on the warfront with Jihadistan.

By the spring of 1775, the Massachusetts Colony was preparing for conflict with the Royal authority over taxation without representation. The colonial authorities had become oppressive, and American Patriots were prepared to cast off their masters.

On the eve of 18 April 1775, General Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts, dispatched a force from Boston to confiscate weapons stored in the village of Concord and to capture Patriot rebels Samuel Adams and John Hancock, reported to be in Lexington. But Patriots had anticipated this raid.

Paul Revere had arranged for advance warning, and though he was captured, Patriot allies William Dawes and Samuel Prescott continued their midnight ride for 22 miles from Boston’s Old North Church to Concord and warned militiamen along the way.

As dawn arrived on 19 April, between 50 and 70 militiamen came to the town green at Lexington to confront the British column. When a few links away from the militia column, the British officer swung his sword, and said, “Lay down your arms, you damned rebels, or you are all dead men. Fire!” Several Patriots were killed and wounded, but none had been ordered to return fire.

However, when the British arrived at Concord’s Old North Bridge, American “Minutemen” fired the “shot heard round the world.” That was the beginning of an eight-year struggle for American independence, a beginning we honor on Patriots Day.

Publisher’s Note

We invite you to visit The Patriot Shop and celebrate our nation’s heritage by purchasing and displaying high-quality framed images of our Founding documents. The Patriot Shop also has the largest selection of official military-branch insignia items on the Internet. And don’t forget to visit The Patriot’s Historic Documents pages for additional resources on America’s founding.

Patriots Day Insight

“Don’t fire unless fired upon. But if they want a war let it begin here.”—Captain John Parker at the Battle of Lexington ++ “The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth.”—Thomas Paine ++ “Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!”—George Washington ++ “The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations… This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.”—John Adams ++ “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”—Thomas Jefferson ++ “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”—Patrick Henry

From the Left: The debate on guns

ABC’s Charlie Gibson seemed to abandon the Leftmedia script on Wednesday night at the Democrat debate in Philadelphia, when he aimed some uncharacteristically tough questions at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. On the subject of the Second Amendment, Gibson asked Obama whether the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns was consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms. Obama affirmed his belief in an individual right to bear arms, but then said that, like other rights, it is subject to government constraint.

As is typical of Democrats, Obama went on to mention the importance of firearms in the context of “tradition” and “hunting,” but not once did he say anything about the right to self-defense or the role of firearms in keeping the government accountable to the people. (See: “Revolution, American.”) This is hardly surprising, considering that Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 2004 that he favored a national ban on concealed carry. When Gibson asked Obama if he still favored registration and licensing of guns, Obama dodged the question by saying that he favored “common-sense approaches,” another favorite phrase from the Democrat playbook. When Gibson mentioned that Obama’s handwriting was on a questionnaire that supported a total ban on handguns, however, Obama denied it, adding, “[W]hat we have to do is get beyond the politics of this issue and figure out what, in fact, is working.” Obama used Chicago as an example, where “[W]e’ve had 34 gun deaths last year of Chicago public-school children.” Obama failed to say how many of those children were gang members, and he conveniently left out the fact that Chicago, like DC, has had a total ban on handguns for years.

Hillary Clinton’s responses were similarly vacuous. She said that she would renew the so-called Assault Weapons Ban (or as we say in our shop, “the ban on guns with certain cosmetic features”), and that she supports “sensible regulation.” On the question of whether the DC ban was consistent with Second Amendment rights, Hillary evaded by saying she didn’t know the facts of the case. She also praised Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter for his (illegal) efforts to curb crime (by banning guns). More on that later.

Of course, Hillary is in favor of “federalism” when it comes to allowing states to have their own restrictive laws concerning guns. She said, “What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.” Blanket rules like, you know, the federal “assault weapons” ban?

Speaking of Patriots Day, both gun-grabbing candidates should keep in mind what Justice Joseph Story had to say on the matter. Story was a Supreme Court nominee of James Madison, the author of our Constitution. “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered,” he said in his Commentaries on the Constitution, “as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.”

Campaign watch: Candidates deal with finances

The Democratic National Committee claims that John McCain violated campaign finance laws by withdrawing from public financing during the primary race earlier this year. The DNC has filed a lawsuit to compel the Federal Election Commission to investigate whether McCain took public money in order to secure a $4-million loan he obtained last year. Ironically, the FEC is currently stretched thin with only two of its six seats filled, thanks to arguments over appointments between the Democrat Congress and President Bush. Democrats are hoping to hold McCain to the limits of public spending so that he has essentially no campaign cash until the general election begins in September.

Meanwhile, government watchdog group Judicial Watch has asked the FEC to investigate the legality of a fundraising concert that singer Elton John held for Hillary Clinton at Radio City Music Hall. The concert raised over $2.5 million for the Clinton camp, but these may be ill-gotten gains since Sir Elton is not a U.S. citizen. As Judicial Watch points out, the concert constitutes an in-kind contribution from a foreign national, which is illegal by federal law. Not that campaign finance laws have hampered the Clintons from raising cash in any manner possible in the past.

As for Barack Obama, in a campaign ad running in Pennsylvania markets, he has been proudly proclaiming that his campaign does not accept money from oil companies. One might think that this is an admirable stand, except that no candidates take money directly from oil companies because it is illegal. Another item that must have slipped Obama’s mind while he was polishing his shiny armor is that two of his top fundraisers are oil executives. George Kaiser, chairman of Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. , and Robert Cavnar, president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC, have each bundled between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama’s campaign. There is nothing illegal about this, but it is indicative of just who Barack Obama is.

Carter aids and abets terrorists

Jimmy Carter’s decision to meet with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal this week has prompted several Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Ehud Omert, to avoid meeting with the former U.S. president. Israeli President Shimon Peres spoke with Carter last Sunday, calling his plan to meet with Meshaal a “severe mistake.” That’s putting it mildly. In addition, for the first time ever, Israel’s secret service has declined to help American agents protect a former U.S. leader during a trip abroad.

Hamas, long recognized as a terrorist organization, has been boycotted by the West since Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary election. Although Hamas has called for a truce with Israel in exchange for an end to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the organization’s 1988 founding charter advocates the destruction of the Jewish state.

Carter defended his decision to play the role of “useful idiot,” stating that the most important single foreign-policy goal of his life is to “bring peace to Israel and peace and justice to Israel’s neighbors.” His actions, however, and his 2006 book comparing Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip with South African apartheid, say otherwise.

Carter also made time to visit fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat’s grave, on which he laid a wreath of red roses. Arafat, often called “the godfather of terrorism,” took home the prize in 1994, along with former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, then Israel’s Foreign Minister, for his peace efforts in the Middle East. We believe columnist Frank Gaffney, Jr. , had it right when he said, “In the final analysis, Jimmy Carter will be best remembered by history as a man whose time in and out of high public office was almost unblemished by success.”

This week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ award

“I feel quite at ease in doing this. I think there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process… I think that it’s very important that at least someone meet with the Hamas leaders to express their views, to ascertain what flexibility they have, to try to induce them to stop all attacks against innocent civilians in Israel and to cooperate with the Fatah as a group that unites the Palestinians, maybe to get them to agree to a cease-fire—things of this kind… I’ve been meeting with Hamas leaders for years.”—Jimmy Carter

News from the Swamp: Colombia snubbed

On the Hill: The U.S. -Colombia Free Trade Agreement is effectively dead (for now) because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) doesn’t think the federal government is doing enough to help the ailing economy. Yes, you read that right: Pelosi wants an additional “stimulus package,” a mortgage bailout and more spending on infrastructure, and she’s willing to stiff a key U.S. ally to get it. Pelosi did just that last week when she changed the House rules that required the trade agreement to receive a vote within 90 days. It is now unlikely that Congress will have a chance to vote on the pact before President Bush leaves office. Pelosi’s ploy also throws a bone to her controllers at the AFL-CIO, who say they will not support a free-trade agreement with Colombia under any circumstances.

Speaker Pelosi might have overplayed her hand, however. This is the second time in two years that she has used the Colombia trade agreement as leverage with the result that politicians, businessmen and even Latino-Americans are starting to object en masse. Case in point: On Monday, 35 former senior officials from Democrat administrations sent an open letter to Pelosi urging passage of the U.S. -Colombia Free Trade Agreement, noting that it is “in both our vital and national security and economic interests.” We agree, as does virtually every editorial page in America (including The New York Times). Nevertheless, Nancy Pelosi is too busy pandering to union members, foolish borrowers and protectionists to concern herself with good economic policy.

Earmark criminal investigation

“The Senate moved yesterday toward asking the Justice Department for a criminal investigation of a $10 million legislative earmark whose provisions were mysteriously altered after Congress gave final approval to a huge 2005 highway funding bill,” The Washington Post reports. The earmark in question was inserted by known pork addict Rep. Don Young (RINO-AK), who was, at the time, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It was Young, after all, who sponsored the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” earmark in 2005. His staff admitted that this latest earmark was “corrected” just before it headed to the president for his signature. The correction sent the money directly to a highway interchange project on Interstate 75 near Naples, Florida—conveniently near 4,000 acres of land owned by real-estate developers who had donated to Young’s campaign. The value of the land would increase if an interchange were built. Local Florida officials, however, were none too pleased to learn that the $10 million had to be spent on an interchange they never requested. As for the investigation, it may be the first of its kind.

’DC Madam’ guilty

Deborah Jeane Palfrey, also known as the DC Madam, was found guilty by a federal jury this week, bringing another tawdry Washington scandal to a close. Palfrey was convicted on every charge, including running a prostitution ring, money laundering, illegal use of the mail and racketeering. Her defense tried to claim that she was merely providing escorts for clients and that the monkey business that took place was at the discretion of the women who worked for her. Needless to say, the jury didn’t buy it. The media didn’t seem to make much of Palfrey’s conviction, most likely because Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) wasn’t called to testify during the trial, even though his name appeared in Palfrey’s little black book. A Republican caught up in a sex scandal is normally big news. A madam looking at jail time for running a prostitution ring… well, life goes on.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Warfront with Jihadistan: Legal terrorism

If recent actions by some in the West are any indication, the jihadis won’t have to defeat us on the battlefield, as the Islamists and their sympathizers have become adept at using Western civil law to silence criticism of Islam and its adherents in order to defeat us from within. In 2003, the director of the American Center for Democracy, Rachel Ehrenfeld, wrote Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed—and How to Stop It. Ehrenfeld named Saudi banker and suspected al-Qa’ida financial supporter Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz in the book. Mahfouz then sued Ehrenfeld for libel in Britain, where libel law is skewed toward the plaintiff. Seeing little hope of winning, Ehrenfeld decided not to defend herself, and in 2005 a British court pronounced a default judgment and ordered Ehrenfeld to apologize to Mahfouz and pay $225,000, putting a deep chill into anyone who thought Islamic terrorism is deserving of criticism.

While Mahfouz’s legal strangulation of free speech has led to other successful actions against similar books, perhaps more disturbing is the assistance the jihadis have received from our own politically correct bureaucracies. The popular Canadian columnist Mark Steyn had complaints lodged against him by the Canadian Islamic Congress before Canada’s federal and provincial human rights commissions because his story in the Canadian magazine Maclean’s was considered “anti-Islam and anti-Muslim.” It is absolutely Orwellian that a Western nation even has an internal “human rights commission,” let alone that it is charged with stamping out free speech. America’s own Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is well known for bullying critics of Islam into silence and sugarcoating terrorist acts perpetrated by adherents of Islam. As Steyn has reminded us, civilizations always die by suicide, not murder, and it would appear many in the West are ready to make their appointment with Dr. Kevorkian.

Profiles of valor: USA 1st Lt. Jackson

During combat operations in Anbar province in September 2006, U.S. Army 1st Lt. W. Bryan Jackson’s unit was attacked by jihadis, leaving several soldiers wounded by machine-gun fire. Instead of seeking cover, Jackson rushed to the side of his wounded first sergeant and began giving first aid. However, Jackson was soon hit in the thigh himself and briefly lost consciousness. When he came to, he quickly resumed aid for his comrade, rather than seek attention for his own wound, all while intermittently returning fire on the enemy. Jackson then carried his first sergeant 30 feet to a Bradley Fighting Vehicle for evacuation, despite being hit a second time by enemy fire. He was evacuated as well but refused treatment until his fellow soldier received more critical aid. Even after the first of several surgeries, Jackson thought only of the man whose life he saved. For his selfless courage and extraordinary heroism, Jackson received both the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Service Cross—the seventh soldier since 1975 to receive that high award. “I believe I just had to do what I had to do in that situation,” he said later. “I think many soldiers would have done the same thing.”

FBI to keep DNA from all arrested

The U.S. government will soon collect DNA samples from anyone arrested in connection with any federal crime. Currently, the federal government enters samples only from convicted felons into the Combined DNA Index System, or CODIS. All federal agencies with investigative or arrest powers have access to the database, and 13 states are already contributing DNA samples from their own arrestees. Most of the samples are obtained by swabbing the inside of the cheek. According to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), “We know for a fact that the proposed regulations will save the lives of many innocent people and will prevent devastating crimes. These regulations are long overdue—we should have done this 10 years ago.” However, there are serious privacy issues. The database will inevitably contain DNA samples from individuals who are arrested but not convicted, and their information will remain in the database unless they specifically request its removal. The federal government insists that it does not use DNA samples to determine a person’s ancestry, genetic traits or diseases, but the potential for misuse is worrisome. While we applaud the efforts of law-enforcement officials to stop criminal behavior, we believe that the government is walking a fine line. At the very least, the DNA information of people who are found innocent should be expunged automatically. But since when do governments voluntarily give up information about their subjects?

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

Income Redistribution: Who pays?

As Income Redistribution Day is now behind us, we found a look at certain aspects of tax collection to be enlightening. As we have noted before, the top half of income earners pay almost all of the income taxes—97 percent in 2005. The top 10 percent paid 70 percent of all income taxes and the top one percent forked over nearly 40 percent of the total. On the other hand, the payroll tax is a different animal.

Lower-income families are hit hardest by the payroll tax because it creates a higher marginal rate and often makes working more hours a losing proposition. Laurence Kotlikoff, a professor of economics, and David Rapson, a doctoral candidate, both of Boston University, studied the effect on hourly wage earners and determined that, for example, “For 30-year-old couples earning $20,000 a year, the marginal tax rate on an additional dollar earned is 42.5 percent; yet those earning $50,000 a year face a marginal tax rate of only 24.4 percent.” The researchers continue, “At age 45, couples earning $30,000 a year face a higher marginal tax rate (41.9 percent) than do those earning $200,000 a year (35.9 percent).” This astonishing punitive system of taxation really raises some eyebrows with another conclusion reached by Kotlikoff and Rapson: “At age 30, a single parent earning $10,000 a year faces a 72.3 percent marginal tax rate on an additional dollar earned due to their loss of welfare benefits; this rate is substantially higher than the 36.9 percent tax rate on the single parent earning $200,000.”

The net effect is, according to the Boston University researchers, “For workers who take steps to increase their income through working overtime, or through furthering their education in order to obtain a higher-paying job, the incentives to do so are dismal.” Our forefathers revolted against Britain for a tax system far less punitive and unfair than the one we are saddled with today.

Oh, and one more thing: The Internal Revenue “Service” actually lost money trying to collect money. That’s right—the IRS expects to lose about $37 million to collection agencies hired to gather $1 billion in unpaid taxes. The companies have managed only $49 million so far, or about half of what the program cost. Never fear, however—the IRS says the program will break even by 2010.

Regulatory Commissars: Flying federal airlines?

Anyone who has traveled by air lately knows that the airline industry is struggling. Skyrocketing oil prices have driven operating costs through the roof. More fliers flying more frequently has led to increased crowding on planes and at airports. Increased security measures have caused longer lines and more irate customers. The harsh winter weather in many parts of the U.S. , along with groundings due to safety inspections, have caused large-scale schedule disruptions and increased angst in the traveling public.

Faced with these daunting problems, the response of some Democrats in Congress has been to make things worse: a return to regulation of the airline industry. Led by Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), some are calling for a return to the days when politically appointed regulators, not the market, determined what cities the airlines serve, how much they charge and how they provide service. If Rep. Oberstar and his colleagues get their way, the airlines will have to compete for the favor of the regulators, rather than for the business of their customers. Prices will increase, the number of flights will decrease, and the flying public will pay the price.

We repeat: The real solution to the airlines’ problems is not more regulation. Instead, Congress could start by allowing increased production and refining of domestic oil to help reduce fuel prices.

Massachusetts healthcare troubles, take two

With each passing week come additional revelations about the Law of Unintended Consequences’ continuing effect upon Massachusetts’ new experiment in universal government healthcare. In an ode to budgetary ineptitude, liberals’ promises of controlled program costs have erupted into one of the state’s largest budget items. Despite an ever-increasing share of the state budget, this misguided big-government scheme has still managed to cover only about half of the uninsured persons for whom it was intended and is generating cost overruns ranging from $400 to $700 million per year. To get their big-government boondoggle approved by voters and the legislature, liberals originally underestimated costs by a factor of four. Or worse.

The most remarkable aspect of this out-of-control program is the lack of voter outcry, though we suspect that these taxpayers will soon demand accountability from their government. Until then, the same people providing the stellar service at the local Registry of Motor Vehicles will also control a large portion of the healthcare market in Massachusetts.

CULTURE

Judicial Benchmarks: Lethal injection method OK

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Wednesday that Kentucky’s method of execution by lethal injection is constitutional. At issue was whether Kentucky’s process of administering three drugs to execute a death-row inmate amounted to “cruel and unusual” punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Of the 36 states that allow the death penalty, 35 specify lethal injection as the method. In the court’s controlling opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said, “Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of ‘objectively intolerable risk of harm’ that qualifies as cruel and unusual.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented. Meanwhile, Justice John Paul Stevens called for outright abolition of the death penalty despite signing on with the majority in the case. Stevens wrote, “State-sanctioned killing [is] becoming more and more anachronistic.” In 1976, Stevens also sided with the Court majority that reinstated the death penalty, but now he declares he has changed his mind.

Two Kentucky death-row inmates brought the matter to court. Ralph Baze and Thomas Bowling were each convicted of double murders. In 1992, Baze shot and killed Powell County, Kentucky, Sheriff Steve Bennett and Deputy Arthur Briscoe as they attempted to serve an arrest warrant on him. Bowling murdered Eddie and Tina Earley outside their small dry-cleaning business in Lexington, Kentucky, in 1990 after ramming their car. He also shot the couple’s two-year old son, but the boy survived. The only thing cruel and unusual here is that these two men are still alive.

The Court now turns its attention to a capital case involving a Louisiana man on death row for raping his eight-year-old stepdaughter. As of 1995, Louisiana permits the death penalty for the rape of a child, but the Supreme Court in 1977 declared that the Eighth Amendment prohibited that punishment for rape. Five other states—Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas—have similar laws.

Faith and Family: Pope Benedict comes to America

Pope Benedict XVI arrived in the United States this week to a warm Washington welcome, complete with a crowd of over 13,000 spectators and a 21-gun salute. In his speech on the White House lawn, Benedict challenged Americans to draw on their religious beliefs in order to deal with the “increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time.”

“From the dawn of the republic,” Benedict said, “America’s quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation’s founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the self-evident truth that all men are created equal.”

Benedict later met for a private discussion with President Bush, and, despite their differences on the War in Iraq, the White House confirmed that the meeting included extensive conversation on the Middle East. Later, speaking to American Bishops, Benedict addressed the church’s sexual-abuse scandal, admitting that it was “sometimes very badly handled” and that “it calls for a determined, collective response.” On Thursday, Benedict held his first U.S. Mass attended by some 46,000 people, and he will address the United Nations on Friday.

Benedict’s trip marks only the second papal visit to the White House in U.S. history—the first was in 1979 during the Carter administration, but the former president was away on “matters of state” and was unavailable for comment.

Village Academic Curriculum: Carbon shoe size

School children may not know their shoe size, but if the National Environmental Education Foundation (NEEF) has its way, by the end of the day Friday they will know the size of their carbon footprint. As part of National Environmental Education Week (EE Week) and just in time for Earth Day, NEEF has launched an online Zerofootprint Carbon Calculator that measures carbon footprints based on students’ responses to questions in five categories: transportation, what you eat, home and school, what you use and what you throw away. The goal is “to infuse environmental education into everyday learning,” and as kids navigate the calculator, they receive suggestions for reducing the size of their footprint—like using compact fluorescent light bulbs and switching to a more plant-based diet. (Readers will recall that livestock emit a significant amount of methane gas. Yes, it seems animals are bad for the planet. We’d love to know NEEF’s position on hunting.)

This year’s calculator is an exercise in awareness, but what’s next? Will Johnny and Susie get grades for environmental foot size? Will parents opting for cars over bikes be labeled earth-wreckers? Or perhaps bickering school children will have a new mantra: “Yeah, well my feet are smaller than yours!” And all because schools have traded science for science fiction.

And last…

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter lived up to his name this week by signing five anti-gun laws in direct contravention of Pennsylvania’s constitution. Among other things, the laws ban the sale of “assault weapons” and limit handgun purchases to one per month. Philadelphia has tried to implement its own gun laws in the past, but the Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that the city couldn’t override the laws passed by the state legislature. By signing and enforcing the five new anti-gun laws, therefore, Mayor Nutter has committed five misdemeanor crimes, and the NRA has promised to sue. Nutter justified breaking the law, saying, “Almost 232 years ago, a group of concerned Americans took matters in their own hands and did what they needed to do by declaring that the time had come for a change. We are going to make ourselves independent of the violence that’s been taking place in this city for far too long.” He added, “If we all sat around bemoaning what the law was on a regular basis, I’d probably still be picking cotton somewhere as opposed to being mayor of the city of Philadelphia.” Maybe someone should tell Nutter that 232 years ago, a group of concerned Americans brought about change using guns. And that he isn’t picking cotton because of guns.

Joining in the good fight, Wal-Mart has decided to help curb gun violence by videotaping firearm sales and creating a database of all gun purchases, despite the fact that the company does not sell assault weapons or handguns. The announcement is the result of negotiations with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition. So if Mayor Nutter really wants to make a difference, he should get a job at Wal-Mart, where they’ll be shooting video of people buying bolt-action.22 rifles. We feel safer already.

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.)