MAKE
A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION
TO THE GLEAN
CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
PIRYX™
ACCEPTS ALL MAJOR CREDIT
CARDS,
AS WELL AS
ELECTRONIC-CHECKS.
____________________________________
____________________________________
The 'Blessings of
Liberty'.
Rise To The
Rescue - Sunday, August 7,
2011
The following
is the transcript of a brief statement,
issued from home, on the day that I
officially announced my candidacy.
ALEXANDRIA,
VA— The 'blessings
of liberty' consist of life,
liberty, happiness, and safety.
These were the four elements of freedom
that had been envisioned and placed on
parchment by our founding
generation. Under these principal
elements, every single one of us has been
guaranteed a life of freedom and justice,
despite any presuppositions our society
– on the whole – might
ever happen to embrace, relating to class
or condition. Where it was the
central purpose of our Constitution to
secure the benefits of this common right,
it became the central duty of government
to shore up those blessings, by all
available means. To keep them
intact. To preserve them. To
reinforce them. And, as
demonstrated by the abolition of slavery,
to abolish any vestiges of wrongdoing
that would enable the freedoms of one
party to encroach upon the freedoms of
another.
¹The
'Blessings of Liberty' were
enumerated by George Mason in The
Virginia Declaration of Rights,
1776, from which the framers of
our Constitution reiterated many
of the same founding
principles— America's
principles. It was the
unmitigated acknowledgement of
these blessings that formed the
backdrop of our state and federal
charters of freedom.
In essence, freedom
is liberty granted us to perform any
activity that is to our personal interest
and advantage, provided that the
performance of such activity does not
interfere with the rights and interests
of others. To enjoy and exercise
our freedom is to enjoy but an equal
share, with our fellow countrymen and
women, in those four basic blessings of
natural law. And where it would be
a crime to deprive anyone – even
our own children – a single one
of those blessings, we are reminded by
the simple conviction of truth and
common-sense that denying Life to our
posterity in the womb has the effect of
violating all four of those blessings in
one deadly shot.
Long before Judge
Blackmun provided his own corrupt opinion
on the matter, our Constitution had
acknowledged, in its own governing
guidelines, that these particular
elements of freedom – life,
liberty, happiness, and safety . . . the
"blessingsof
liberty" –
are untouchable by law. What this
means, in point of fact, is that the
divestment of liberty cannot be brought
about by the federal judiciary. It
cannot be brought about in the form of
constitutional amendment, or by
legislative enactments, or in any other
way. Instead, the intention was to
safeguard our natural rights from
tyrants, such as Blackmun, who would seek
to undermine our moral sovereignty by
means of their political power.
This safeguard was set in place because
of good, godly, moral individuals such as
George Mason and Patrick Henry, who
understood the basic principles of
natural law— that we cannot,
by any compact, deprive or divest our
posterity "the enjoyment of life
and liberty" or the means of
pursuing and obtaining "happiness
and safety."
²Notice
that the framers of our
Constitution were careful to use
the word 'blessings' in their
summation of these rights.
It seems that, nowadays, the
politicians would prefer to have
folks think that these rights
were granted us by the kind and
generous hand of our government,
and the benevolence of our
political leaders. But as a
people, we still exemplify many
of the same, true religious
convictions that were held and
honored by our founding
generation. And according
to our own indivisible
share in that religous heritage,
we happen to know, as the framers
surely knew, that 'blessings' can
only come by
Providence— the very
hand of God, himself.
By what right,
then, did Blackmun deny these blessings
to those in the womb? By
absolutely no right at all!
As revealed by his actions, this was a
man determined to ignore the defining
purpose of the Constitution, as plainly
set forth in the Preamble: To
secure the blessings of liberty "to
ourselves and
our posterity." In so
doing, Judge Blackmun intentionally
– dare I say, ruthlessly
– displaced the rights of our
posterity, relegating them to some
imaginary, secondary, subjugated
level— in effect, returning
the American people to the bonds of
slavery, where the worth and dignity of
mankind would once again be subjectively
determined by those in power, on the
basis of class or condition.
To put it another
way, Blackmun had effectively
re-established the 'slaveholder'
position— the belief that
personhood is conditional. An
unborn child is not under the protection
of the Fourteenth Amendment, he wrote in
the Court's decision, because the
Constitution never once defines a child
in the womb as a 'person'. But on what
premise shall that which is human be
declared sub-human? And on
what basis should the worth of any being
that is understood to be fully human by
parentage, even as it is portrayed in its
most abstract and indistinct form, ever
be consigned to such a sordid indignity
as to be somehow expelled from the human
race? Or robbed of the pre-existent
humanity that is imparted to it, not by
the will of its parents, but by
virtue of the parents' own human
nature? Whatever the underlying
premise, the existence of such defective
reasoning gives tragic context to the old
fallacy of 'denying the antecedents',
providing a true to life example
of this elementary concept of flawed
logic. Outside of the inherent
precondition of being human, my belief is
that there should never be any
subjugating or circumscribable conditions
placed on the meaning of the word person,
especially given the forewarning that
those conditions would ultimately be
determined by an oligarchy of political
elitists. The untoward suggestion
that someone begotten of human stock
could ever be classified as anything less
than a person – anything
less than a bona fide human
being with protectable interests in life,
health, and well-being – is
downright contemptible! And when we
allow the judges and the politicians to
toy around with the intended meaning of
pivotal expressions such as this, for the
sake of fulfilling their own corrupt
political agenda, I think it sets a very
dangerous precedence.
³The
argument that a child in the womb
is not a 'person' happens to be
the very same argument used by
the slaveholders, when they
falsely asserted it was their
constitutional right to hold
slaves. According to their
position, a slave was not really
a person, and therefore was not
under the protection of the
Constitution. By this same
measure of flawed reasoning, I
suppose it could be argued that
an eight-year-old child, or a
perhaps Jewish individual, or
someone who is disabled, is not
really a person, either.
Besides all of
this, let us not forget that the word 'posterity',
itself, includes individuals who we
cannot even yet imagine. Our future
generations of children and
grandchildren, people who may walk this
earth hundreds of years from now, as
quiet, living testaments to the fact that
we were here. Many of them we may
never see, and many of them we may never
know— and yet that word, 'posterity',
happens to include each and every one of
them. And just as this word was
meant to include those descendants who
are hundreds, perhaps thousands of years
beyond our immediate frame of view, it
only makes sense that the word was also
meant to include all those who are asleep
in the womb, living and breathing and
growing and lying right there before our
very eyes, in the antechamber of this
walking life. To be certain, the
Constitution not only recognizes
these individuals <<<including those
who have not even yet been conceived!>>>
but it places their rights and
their protectable interests on an
equal level with our own.
Later this year, on
November 8, 2011, Virginia's 44th House
District will have a very critical
decision to make. On the one hand,
we will have an opportunity to re-elect
the incumbent, an individual whose
willingness to neglect the moral
sovereignty of those in the womb has been
so pronounced and so deliberate* that it has earned
him the endorsement and political support
of the entire abortion lobby:
Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other
groups which stand to profit from the
growth and pervasiveness of abortion in
our society. On the other hand, we
may yet have the opportunity to cast a
vote in favor of principled conservatism,
as we seek to promote that very simple,
but quintessential expression of moral
consciousness that was modeled by our
founding generation, and by the
forward-thinking wisdom of individuals
such as George Mason and Patrick
Henry— the men who pioneered
our national creed of freedom, justice,
and moral wherewithal.
(Transcript continues below.)
Delegate
Scott Surovell is
deeply devoted to
the destruction of
family:
Jan.
20, 2010 -
(RICHMOND, VA) Scott
Surovell
participated in a press
conference hosted by
NARAL Pro-Choice
Virginia. This
photograph shows him
standing with the
organization's president,
Tarina Keene, former
"Director of
Development" for
Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern
Virginia. I am in
agreement with Bob
Marshall's assessment
that this organization
ought to call themselves
"Planned
Barrenhood",
as its central mission
has essentially been to
subdue the world
population through
political mechanisms.
April
29, 2010 -
(ALEXANDRIA, VA) A
small reception was held
in honor of Scott
Surovell and
five other pro-abortion
members of the Virginia
General Assembly, during
the 2010
Legislative Debriefing
session hosted by NARAL
Pro-Choice
Virginia. In
effect, these six
individuals were honored
for holding the
'slaveholder'
position— the
belief that personhood is
conditional. To
honor such individuals,
as I see it, is to
repudiate the good work
of all those who devoted
their service to the
cause of abolishing
slavery.
April
29, 2010 -
(ALEXANDRIA, VA) Scott
Surovell
discussed his opposition
to HB 1042, a bill
designed to bring
Virginia's Informed
Consent
law in linewith
modern ultrasound
technology.
Regrettably, abortion
centers tend to steer
their customers away from
such imaging
options. The reason
why, as NARAL
Pro-Choice Virginia reports,
is that mandatory
ultrasounds are bad for
business. Yet with
every subtle glimpse of
life in the womb, we gaze
upon that which is but a
simple reflection of God's
own sacred image.
February
25, 2011 -
(RICHMOND, VA) Scott
Surovell and
other members of the
Virginia General Assembly
came together to form The
Virginia Progressive
Caucus.
The group is made up of
Virginia lawmakers who
favor public policy
initiatives that are
pro-homosexuality and
pro-abortion. Our
freedom of religion has
been turned on its head
by leaders such as these,
who seek to impose their
doctrines of secular
humanism and moral
relativism— so
as to establish, by
legislative enactment, a
compulsory state
religion.
June
22, 2011 -
(ARLINGTON, VA) Scott
Surovell
endorsed the candidacy of
Jaime
Areizaga-Soto,
Democrat for State
Senate, claiming,
"We need Jaime in
Richmond taking on the
backwards policies of
Cuccinelli and standing
up for progressive
priorities."
That statement says a
mouthful, since the top
two issues of this
particular candidate
happen to be
abortion-on-demand and
the mandatory, statewide
indoctrination of
homosexuality. Hard
to believe? Stop by
his website
and see for yourself.
What it
says, in essence, is that
he completely
underestimates the value
of family and the
essential role that it
happens to play in human
society. In
neglecting the rights of
our posterity, Surovell
has turned a blind eye to
the destruction of our
traditional family, and
like Areizaga, he
shamelessly panders to
the political persuasions
of those who have sought
to substitute family with
artificial surrogates
that are decidedly
barren, sterile, and
deviant, conspicuously
unfulfilling, and
hopelessly inadequate.
(Transcript continues here.)
Perhaps no one in
today's day and age understands the
essence of that old patriotic paradigm
with greater clarity than those
individuals among us who have suddenly
come to realize – after all
these years – that the
Constitution can only work if the
individuals, who we allow to man the
posts under the Constitution, have the
necessary character, vision,
understanding, and moral courage to make
it work. This is why I am asking
for the support of Democrats and
Republicans alike in removing politicians
like Scott Surovell from
public office. As I see it, both
parties have been complicit in the
betrayal of our moral sovereignty.
What is required at this point is that we
look past whatever comfortable
affiliation we have traditionally held
with the political parties, and instead
focus on the role that almighty God would
have us to play in these troubling times.
On Election Day
2011, I propose that we set aside
whatever imaginary obligations that we
feel we owe to the political parties and,
for once in our lives, simply vote our
conscience— for the sake of
all that is good, decent, and proper; and
for the enduring love of God and
country. An untold measure of moral
influence is there for us to express and
affirm at the ballot-box. If
ordinary citizens would simply take a
stand and exert some of that influence
abortion, infanticide, euthenasia, and
all things of the sort, might be kept in
their proper dominion, and restrained
from encroaching upon the free people of
the Commonwealth of Virginia. Remember:
The best way to improve public policy is
to vote only for those sturdy individuals
who truly represent YOU.
Joe Glean -
Alexandria, Virginia Prospective Delegate for the 44th
House District
