Hannukah: Tyrants Disappearing

Hanukkah began last Friday night with the lighting of the first candle and the singing of Maoz Tzur--Rock of Ages. And busy though we were, trying to get out of the house for the Boychick's guitar class concert, we paused to remember Judah the Maccabee, who led Jewish guerilla warriors against the army of the the Tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes--who called himself god--and won. (The Maccabees called him Antiochus Epimanes--the fool, because only a fool would claim to be a god).

Tyranny is a system of government that not only wants to control your resources but also wants to assimilate you, to enslave not only your body, but your mind and soul as well. Thus Antiochus Epimanes wanted not only to steal the resources of the Jews, but he wanted to control their thoughts and beliefs; he wanted to control their every activity from what they said before they ate, what they ate, and how they bore and raised their children. Antiochus wanted not only to enslave a generation but to create generations that would think like slaves. Thus the Syrian-Greek Empire outlawed the study of Torah and the ritual of Brit Milah--the circumcision of Jewish sons. They forbade marriage, and defiled the mikdash katan--the little altar of the family table--by interfering in the education of the children and forcing Jews to sacrifice to pagan gods and to eat pork.
This was done in the name of perfect unity of the Seleucid Greek Empire.

Tyranny was not a new thing then, nor is it old and forgotten now.
All tyrants, ancient and modern, want the same thing: absolute power and control over the lives of the people. They want to create a matrix in which people will serve the interests of the empire without realizing the extent of their slavery. For this reason, tyrants across space and time have an interest in destroying the uniqueness of culture, the diversity of thought and belief, in order to impose one order upon their empires. Thus the attack on ritual and family and education. Thus the elevation of the state and its ritual over the hopes and dreams and desires of the individual. We see this in history with Antiochus, with Ceasar and the Roman emperors; we have seen it more recently with the fascist-collectivist states of Italy and Germany under Mussolini and Hitler, and with the socialist-collectivist states within the Soviet Union.

Historically, Jews, with our fierce requirement of identity and independence, have been enemies of them all, and the more recent of such states have known it and desired to destroy not only our culture and religion, but our very lives.

Currently, we see the same tyrannous desires arising in the name of world government by use of calls for perfect unity and comformity in order to save the planet from climate change, in order to impose equity and the redistribution of wealth. These are new excuses for the same envious quest for power and control of free minds. And despite protests to the contrary, the advocates of this new world order, are already moving to wipe out the diversity of identity and belief through control of ritual and the family and education. And they are moving to destroy the foundation of individual liberty upon which all independent thought and action rests. They are doing so , as they always have, by appealing to people to sacrifice their individual rights to the collective in the name of an undefined "greater good."

This call for world government is no secret conspiracy. It has been openly discussed for over 100 years, and most recently is being openly called for as part of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty. Ridiculing it as a "conspiracy theory" is designed to shut down opposition, but does nothing to change the reality that ever since Alexander the Great, there have been people who want to rule the world.

And speaking of Alexander the Great, the Seleucids were heirs to one of the three generals who inherited his empire. And each of the three set about setting up their own tyrannies in order to redistribute the wealth of the nations they conquered to themselves. They did it in the name of unity and glory and sacrifice. That works.

What the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epimanes did not count on was the fiercely independent spirit of Mattiyahu the Priest, of the small town of Modi'in, and his sons Eliezer, Shimon, Yochannan and Yonatan, and Judah Maccabee.

As was true of many such a person, Mattiyahu tried to go along to get along, subverting the Seleucid new world order quietly for as long as he could. But as happens with such men, there came the day of the last straw when Mattiyahu said the Hebrew eqivalent of: "No. Thus far and no further will I go." And he began the rebellion that became a war against an empire. And after three long years and the deaths of Mattiyahu and many of his sons, the war was won. A band of rag-tag but determined rebels against a mighty king and his empire.

That empire has gone the way of all empires now. As have many after it, from the glory and oppression of Rome to the "thousand-year Reich."

But the spiritual children of the Maccabees remain.

Children of the Maccabbees, whether free or fettered.
Wake the echoes of the song, where you may be scattered.
Yours the message cheering, that the time is nearing,
That will see all men free,
Tyrants disappearing.
That will see all men free,
Tyrants disappearing.
(From Maoz Tzur--Rock of Ages)

The Children of the Maccabees understand that there is point past which a tyrant cannot push a free individual. The Children of the Maccabbees know that, when push comes to shove, a free people will rise up and throw off the yoke of tyranny. And they know that in every generation, there are those who will rise against us to enslave us and that such people must be fought. Now we fight to subvert of their intent to enslave us with our own free action. Now we fight their propaganda through the written word. And we pray that these will be sufficient.

But we know as Mattiyahu did that the free individual can only take so much before she arises to throw off the yoke of the tyrant.
And we know, as Judah the Maccabee knew, that free people at some point decide to die on their feet rather than live on their knees.

We remember Judah Maccabee.

And like Judah, our R3volution comes from love, not fear.

Love of who we are and love of the freedom to be.

And we will never surrender our liberty.

We remember Judah Maccabee.

A Little Learning is a Dangerous Thing

Recently I had the experience of hearing a Catholic deacon give a talk regarding the issue of forgiveness. His overall message was a good one--one that I hope the principal audience will hear--but his discussion was marred by a mistaken statement of Jewish understanding of forgiveness that led in turn to an implied sense of superiority of Christianity over Judaism. I know from my years in Jewish-Catholic dialogue how often and uncounsciously such statements and the ensuing triumphalist implications occur as well-intentioned Christians say things about Judaism that make Jews wince.

For example, I have had more than one well-meaning Christian tell me that "Jews worship a god of laws and judgment" but that Christians "worship a god of love." In response, my gut wants me to respond by saying something like: "Huh? It was Christianity that invented the concept of hell and a god that condemns people to eternal torment and punishment. Doesn't sound particularly loving to me." But I don't say it. I wince and remind myself that the self-proclaimed Christian expert on Judaism has probably never been to a Jewish worship service and thus has never heard Jews pray "Ahavah rabba ahavtanu . . .With great love have You loved us, Eternal our G-d . . ."

When such statements are made as part of a sermon, I wince particularly hard because I am unable to respond to or correct the speaker. This is the experience that I had with respect to the deacon and his mistaken understanding that led in turn to a mistaken interpretation that led ultimately to the "wince factor."

In this case, the deacon was discussing the question of how many times one must forgive another, and he related it back to a story in the Christian scriptures. The relevant bit is this:
"Now the Jewish requirement is to forgive up to three times, isn't it? So the man decided to take the three and add four more to make seven. But Jesus said, 'Seventy times seven.'"
At the point where he said "isn't it?", he looked directly at the Engineering Geek and me, seated at the center aisle side of pew 3. We both shook our heads. But the good deacon ignored us, going on instead to a smug conclusion about the superiority of Christian forgiveness over the apparently antiquated practices of the Jews.

His mistake? There is no numerical limit to how often a Jew should forgive someone. That is entirely up to the judgment of the individual who can consider the offense and the circumstances that are unique to the situation. The deacon transposed the limit of three from the offender to the offended against. The actual question that this number is in answer to is this: "How many times must a person ask forgiveness of another and be refused?" The answer is three times.

Suppose that one person has wronged another person. Jewish tradition has it that one cannot request forgiveness from G-d* for a wrong against another person. Rather we are required to make good with the person we have wronged. To do so, a person must acknowledge the wrong, resolve not to do it again, and then go to person and ask pardon by stating those acknowlegments. But how should a person carry guilt if the wronged party refuses to forgive? The answer is that a person must ask forgiveness three times spread out over a period of time. If after the third attempt, no forgiveness is forthcoming, then provided that repentence is sincere, a person can go on with her life knowing that the problem now belongs to the other person. In this way, one person cannot forever withhold forgiveness from another out of spite and thus perpetuate the hurt and the harm.

*For this reason, murder essentially becomes unforgivable. The victim is dead and cannot forgive or withold forgiveness, and therefore a murderer must carry his crime to the grave with him.

So the deacon got the basic fact wrong, and from there completely misunderstood what the man in the story's answer meant. The man said that one should forgive seven times. In Jewish numerology the number seven symbolizes completeness. One must forgive completely. (This might sound difficult but if you think about it, forgiving a little bit is like being a little bit pregnant. Forgiveness, if it is forgiveness, is all or nothing. Either you forgive or you don't).

In any case, it does not appear that Christianity is superior to Judaism on the question of how often one must forgive another. In any case, the proof--as they say--is in the pudding. And it appears to me that forgiveness is a difficulty that people of all faiths and none at all have with each other.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing," wrote Alexander Pope in his Essay on Criticism. It can certainly create the wince factor in someone who has drunk more deeply of the Pirean Spring with regard to a particular subject or tradition.

Of course, this is not a danger limited to givers of sermons. Indeed, it applies to all humanity--including bloggers.

Lightning and Thunder Blizzard

NEARLY WORDLESS WEDNESDAY

And another snow day. But this time, a blizzard.

On Monday morning the weather alert went out. Blizzard warning for the East Mountains.

I went to an NMPA strategy session with Dave and Ray at Ray's house just west of Moriarity. When Dave and I drove back toward Edgewood at 3 PM, it began to rain. By the time we were climbing the east side of Sedillo hill it was snow. By the time I got the truck and went to get the Boychick, Highway 14 and Frost Rd. were snowpacked.

A walk with the dogs at 8:00 PM and there were three inches and still snowing. Then it stopped.

But the blizzard had yet to arrive. At 5:30 Tuesday morning we were awakened by two very bright lighting flashes, one after another, followed by thunder. Suddenly, with two dogs now on the bed with us, the wind picked up and the snow began to lash the house. The blizzard had arrived. By 5:55 AM, we got the SchoolReach call: two hour delay. After walking the dogs a very short distance, we got the second call. Full snow day. The roads kept drifting as fast as the crews could clear them.

A strong west wind, gusts up to 60 MPH, blows snow across the meadow. On Monday evening, the trees had been beautifully flocked with snow. The wind removed it.









Almost white-out conditions prevailed a good part of the day. The clouds were as dark as rain clouds, but they were producing snow. It was hard to tell sometimes whether it was snowing or just blowing snow.

More falling and blowing snow as the coulds raced from west to east; moments of sunshine peeking through were followed by more clouds piling over the mountain front. And more falling snow.

Afternoon, and the snow stopped. The sun was still playing coy among the clouds--now out, now hidden.

And I finally got an answer to my question. Were the tracks in the yard other dogs or coyotes? Definitely coyote.

Here is a young one, down by the scrub oak behind the house. Beautiful!

Tomorrow. Two hour delay because the roads are icy. But we should be able to get out of here.

Tell El Nino. Tell Winter: Let up until after the wedding.

Please? With a dusting of snow on top?

CC2009: Finding Common Spiritual Ground

As we, the citizen-delegates, have returned home from St. Charles, IL and the Continental Congress, the road ahead has begun to be laid out before us. And we have been in constant communication with one another via secure communication channels, in order to lay out the maps of that road, and plan the work. For the Congress, and the soon to be released Articles of Freedom are not the culmination of our work; rather, they are the foundation and guidebook for the restoration of Constitutional governance for the Republic of the United States.

Part of the work we are engaged in now is making sense of the profound experience we all had at CC2009 and to integrate into our lives where we are now. The intensity of it is hard to describe, but many delegates called it an "emotional roller coaster", and many of us bonded as people do when they confront such an experience together.


For me, that bonding continues as I reach out to the "other Christians" who were present at CC2009. These are the ones, probably the majority, who are not 'dominionists" in any sense, and who are sure enough of their own faith that they do not have to impose their particular theology on others. Therefore I was delighted when a thread appeared at the delegates' secure site that addressed the issue of the loud but few Christians whose agenda at the Congress seemed to be less about defending the Constitution and more about calling those of other faiths "blasphemers" and "infidels."


Part of the discussion at this threat has been an exchange of letters between the loudest dominionist (whom I have discussed but who shall remain nameless here) and two or three other Christian delegates, who have taken great exception to his presumption in speaking for G-d and for them. They wrote with great passion about the depth of free religious expression they witnessed at CC2009, and they also wrote that they saw all of the delegates (with the exception of a very few) place their personal agendas to side in order to focus on "the higher purpose" for which we gathered. I was so taken with the vision of these "other Christians" that I responded on the same thread. Here is my response about the blessings that we had all observed at CC2009. (When I refer to the the chief dominionist, I shall call him Mr. I. For someone who thinks he has cornered the market on G-d, is certainly an idolater).

Response at "Good Grief Department" Thread, CC2009

Thank you for your vision of CC2009. Although my religious expression is completely different from either of yours, I, too, saw a good deal of free religious expression at CC2009. Some of it was too much for me, or too narrowly focused, and so I left the room several times. However, my expression of my religious liberty neither stifled nor ended the religious expression of others.

With my own contributions to CC2009 of well over a month's salary, I helped support the use of a room for a Christian Chapel, a place in which my prayers would not have been welcome by the likes of Mr. I; I did not complain and neither did I withdraw my support. I simply prayed in my own room, as was appropriate for me.

"These are the obligations without measure, whose reward,too is without measure, and the fruits of which may be eaten either in this world or the world to come . . ." There is no need for one’s piety to be seen for it to be rewarded. The fruit that ripens with time is the sweetest to taste.

Mr. I appears to have had a fit of pique because he was unable to impose his religious expression on those of us who disagree with his theology. But his viewpoint was amply aired by him, and by others. If Mr. I's religious expression was found wanting by some of us, surely that is his own problem, and does not reflect badly on the Congress itself.

In my experience, there was plenty of blessing to be had at CC2009, and those who were unable to see it because that blessing did not appear in the form they demanded are to be pitied; they have eyes, but are unable to see the Eternal Presence in those human beings who are not like themselves.

Our Rabbis taught: "Great is the Eternal Master of the Universe. For an earthly king puts the stamp of his likeness on every coin of the realm, and all those coins are alike. The Eternal Creator, however, has placed within each human being the Divine Image and Likeness, and yet no two human beings are the same."

It is upon us to rejoice forevermore at the myriad facets of divine understanding and wisdom we learn from each individual, each as unique as the snowflakes that fall upon the mountains in winter, and yet all of which together cannot express the infinity that is the Eternal Creator of the Universe.

Somewhat Wordless Snow Day!

NEARLY WORDLESS SPECIAL

Yesterday I did not post a nearly wordless Wednesday.

I had words and only words to post, and completely forgot it was Wednesday.

This morning, however Mother Nature--with the help of El Nino--did just that.

It began snowing right when I took Umbre out for his early morning constitutional.

It was 14 degrees (F) and the snow began.

Our 1 - 3 inches turned into 6 - 8 inches and it snowed steadily until nearly 4 PM.

I didn't know it could snow much at such low temperatures.

The view from the dining room window.

Apparently, it is time to put away the autumn decorations and take out the winter things.

The Menorah can stay. Hannukah begins next Friday, the day before the Chem Geek Princess's Wedding.

Umbre loves snow!
He tunnels in it, he digs it, he snuffs his nose into it, and even eats it.

The little guy is just full of himself!

Umbre was the only one going anywhere today.
Henry, the Big Red Truck, did not get so much as a warm up or a good scraping today.

Although his school was in session, I wasn't going to take the Boychick until I saw a snowplow.

We did not see one until well after East Mountain threw in the towel and closed early.






Nearly sunset, and the sky cleared.
Beautiful.

But the temperature also began to drop precipitously from our daytime high of 14 degrees. By sunset we experienced single digits.

Now the temp is heading across the zero point and into negative numbers.

And the sky is clouding up again as the wind shifts. Could it really snow when its that cold?

They say it might. I'll believe it when I see it!

CC 2009: Articles of Freedom Preamble

The Preamble of the Articles of Freedom along with an interview with CC2009 President, Michael Badnarik, now available at the CC2009 Website.

Here is the Preamble. This was an entirely different draft than that which was first proposed. This one was approved because it stated the same information, but in a much shorted and stirring style. Enjoy!

Articles of Freedom of Continental Congress 2009 November 21, 2009.

In defense of a free people, the time has come to reassert our God-given natural rights and cast off tyranny.

Let the facts reveal - the Federal Government of the United States of America, which was instituted to protect the rights of individual citizens, instead - threatens our life, liberty and property through usurpations of the Constitution; and emboldened by our own lack of responsibility and due diligence in these matters, has exceeded its mandate, and abandoned those founding principles which have made our nation exceptional;

Our servant government has undertaken these unconstitutional actions in direct violation of their enumerated duties, to the detriment of the People's liberty and the sovereignty of our Republic;

Over many years and spanning multiple political administrations, the People who have, in good conscience, attempted to deliberate our grievances and voice our dissent against these offensive actions through both petition and assembly, have been maligned and ignored with contempt;

The people of the several States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming, justly alarmed at these arbitrary and unconstitutional actions, have elected, constituted and appointed delegates to meet, and sit in general Congress in the city of St. Charles, Illinois. Whereupon these delegates, as duly elected representatives of the several States, have gathered in defense of divine justice, liberty and the principles of limited government, and we stand in clear recognition of the supreme law of the land - the Constitution of the United States of America.

Therefore, We demand that Government immediately re-establish Constitutional rule of law, lest the People be forced to do so themselves; and we hereby serve notice that in the defense of Freedom and Liberty there shall be NO COMPROMISE to which we shall ever yield.

CC2009: Here There Be Dragons

Note: A week ago today we completed our last deliberations concerning the Articles of Freedom, a title only agreed upon late Saturday afternoon, November 22, 2009, and held our closing ceremonies, including a signing ceremony for the Preamble, the Civic Action Statement, and the Pledge of Commitment. A week is not enough time to fully digest what we did there and what was accomplished, so this is only a beginning. The documents refered to below are yet to be published.

• Participating in the Continental Congress 2009 as a delegate was in equal measure intense and frustrating, powerful and ultimately affirming. The intensity was so great that during the Congress the outside world receded, and the everyday news took a backseat to our deliberations concerning more fundamental Constitutional issues. And since New Mexico first delegate Michael Lunnon and I drove there and back again, that bubble of intensity continued to a lesser extent until I arrived home on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. Thus I have spent the past five days not only preparing and celebrating Thanksgiving, but also in an uneven and still incomplete struggle to re-engage with my previous everyday life. It has only just begun to dawn on me that the maps of my previous everyday life will have to be redrawn; that the terms of the re-engagement must expand to become a new normal. On the map of my life as I understand it, I have pushed the boundaries out into an unknown labeled "Here there be Dragons."
  
  
  Going into the Continental Congress I understood my role as delegate differently, perhaps, than some of the other delegates. I went knowing that the elections we held drew very few voters, and those chiefly from the New Mexico patriot community, those already awakened to the de facto demise of the Constitution of the United States over the past hundred years. Therefore, I understood that as a delegate I was not going to CC2009 to represent my state in a legislative sense, but rather to represent those who had voted for and/or financially supported our delegation, as well as to try to the best of my ability to bring to the Congress an understanding of Constitutional violations as they affect New Mexico, which like any state, has unique interests and concerns vis-a-vis the federal government. Therefore, I understood that at this juncture, my importance and the importance of the Congress was (and is) modest.
  
  
  This sense was of great benefit to me when the fear factor of taking on the system became real to the body of the Continental Congress. I understood that unless and until we build a mass movement, we will not be considered a real threat to anyone. Therefore, as the rumor mills got going among some of the more volatile delegates and their coalitions, I held firmly to the meaning of R3volution: we do this out of our love for liberty, not out of fear or anger.
  
  
  Secondly, I did not go to the Congress with any personal agenda that I intended to push. Rather, I went with the rationale and purpose for which this Continental Congress was called: to document to a candid world that petitions for redress of grievances had been made and gone unanswered; to document the ongoing violation of the Constitution in the instances that the petitions addressed; and to develop peaceful but firm civic responses to be taken upon the gathering of a mass movement in order to bring a rebellious servant government to heel. As I understood it, the first two items were the primary work of the Congress convened, whereas gathering a mass movement would be our job and the job of the various patriot alliances once the Articles of Freedom were written and signed.
  
  
  Even before the 2009 Continental Congress convened, however, it became apparent that there were individuals and factions who did not intend to come to achieve the agenda laid out by the We the People Foundation and We the People Congress, but that had their own agenda. Some were coming with the view that the Constitution was already null and void, and thus that the Petitions for Redress were futile and that the Congress should take an entirely different approach. Others were coming with the intention of getting the Congress to agree that the United States does in fact have an established religion, a certain form of Fundamentalist Christianity, and thus were pushing a Dominionist agenda. However, as a pre-Congress survey made clear, the vast majority of the delegates agreed with the agenda of the organizing body, We the People Foundation.
  
  
  As it became clear when the Congress actually convened, even though the majority of the delegates agreed on the purposes of the Congress, and upon the agenda adopted without change on the first day, there was plenty of difference about the outcomes and the civic actions that ought to be undertaken. Although many of us agreed with the groundwork already completed by We the People Foundation regarding the Petitions for Redress, there was a general sense apparent in the first deliberations on Thursday November 12 that the timeline and actions laid out by We the People were too conservative given the rapidity with which our constitutional republican form of government is now being dismantled.
  
  
  During the first week of the Congress, from Nov. 12 - Nov. 18, the body settled into an exacting routine in which we would hear expert testimony on one Petition for Redress first thing in the morning and another first thing in the afternoon. After each presentation, we would retire to the New Orleans Ballroom in order to deliberate upon the testimony and--at least according to the agenda--determine the answers to the following general questions:
  
  
  
• was the particular petition addressing a real violation of the Constitution?
• if so, what are particular Articles and/or amendments violated?
• was the petition unanswered?
• if so, what instructions should the people send to the federal government (Congress and Executive) to make them accountable? What instructions to the states for them to assert their sovereignty in the matter? What civic actions should be suggested to the the people for them to assert their power and sovereignty?

The first few days of deliberations were more difficult than I expected at the time. It became quickly apparent that the majority of delegates had very little experience with parliamentary process. It was also clear that a sizable minority of delegates had not received a thorough education in matters constitutional, and that many were hearing some of these petitions and their background for the first time. Even with these impediments, I thought that the body of the Congress would "gel" in a few days, and that we would see actual documents emerging, as everyone gained experience and understanding. And to a limited extent this did begin to happen, especially after sub-committees were established to write reports based upon the above general questions, which were made more specific to each Petition in the actual CC2009 Agenda .

But even with rules changes and an increased ability to use Robert's Rules of Order on the part of the delegations, I noticed that certain people tended to "camp out" at the microphone, and that there seemed to be determined core group(s) that used procedure to actually subvert the will of the body. Some of them seemed to be pushing specific agendas that were not that of the group, some seemed to be loose coalitions, but by far the most worrisome were a few individuals who seemed to foment division by espousing different sides of issues at different times, inconsistent to any personal or group agenda. This was different from what I observed of other groups and factions, which were consistent over time.

I believe that this one small group of infiltrators had the intention of discrediting CC2009 and used the passions of some of the other factions to try and make it happen. Additionally, and more unforgivably, this small faction appeared to use some delegates who had unstable personalities to achieve this purpose. In my opinion, this was the cause of much of the drama that occurred during the Congress.

That drama, along with the intensity of our days, and the immensity of what we were learning about the destruction of our liberty, created an edge to our deliberations. It heightened our passion to have the perfect solutions mapped out with respect to instructions to our servant government and to the States, and later when we began to write the Articles themselves, our recommendations for civic action for the people. The problem was that among 113 strong-minded individuals, there was nearly the same number of "perfect" solutions.

In order to deal with this, most of us tended toward finding like-minded individuals for discussion and support. I found Libertarians and libertarian-minded people whose understanding of the problem and whose principled solutions resonated with me, and from whom I could learn when my own analysis failed me. Thus my mind was engaged by the ideas of our President, Michael Badnarik, the anarcho-capitalist John Bush, and the scholar Jon Roland. I also had invigorating conversations with some of the young people who were just discovering libertarian ideas and the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

I did speak up at the Congress, but not being one to camp out on the microphone queue, I spent far more time listening, thinking and in private discussion. I also worked on several committees, and as the secretary for the General Welfare Clause committee, I made my proudest contribution word-smithing both the primary and the ancillary reports. I also got to the microphone a few times during open discussion, and once I helped stop a change of language amendment that would have made us look foolish by changing the name of the Department of Homeland Security. I was also among those of an impromptu coalition that got the Non-Initiation of Force Principle (NIP) into the final document.

I saw that among my fellow delegates there were many moments in which personal prejudices and individual agendas led to public or private statements inconsistent with their own avowed principles. Some of these were religious in nature, as were certain efforts to impose the dogmas of specific religions upon the Congress and the people of the United States in what I call the "Christian nation" claim. Others involved prejudices against certain groups of American citizens, such as the denial of private property rights to Native Americans on the reservation, in what I call the paternalistic "white man's burden" claim. There were others, and for my part, I know I did not think deeply enough about the Mann Amendment that was passed without debate at the end of the Congress when many delegates were out of the room. I concurred with Ron Mann that the language was suitably non-sectarian, but I did not enter into a dialogue about the vote with my delegation.

Despite the drama, the inconsistencies in principle, and the personal and factional agendas--that is, despite the very human nature of those of us assembled--the Congress did accomplish the intended goals: to develop a series of instructions to Congress, to the States, and recommendations to the people, with respect to Petitions for Redress of Grievances. They included those dealing with the First Amendment right to petition, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the War Powers clause, the misuse of the "General Welfare" clause and the right to private property. Even those reports and recommendations that seemed "obvious" to some of us met with strongly passionate debate that served to increase the understanding of many of us, and also heightened our commitment to liberty.

And at the last our trust and reliance upon the honor and the integrity of those who will be charged with the style and formatting of all of the documents made it possible for many of us to sign the Preamble and Pledge sections of the document. And since those who signed were present as each tiny pearl of agreement was wrested from contention, we all understand both the frailty and magnitude of what we accomplished.

I stood in the line to sign after the closing ceremony, laughing from the relief of finishing the document together, even though it was imperfect. I felt light, and thought: "This is what freedom feels like." And then, as I stood with the pen in my hand in front of the Zia Flag, I felt the gravity of the moment. Putting my hand to that Preamble and that Pledge, I suddenly knew, meant that my personal maps of reality would change. Here there be Dragons!

In the end, the magnitude of our accomplishment will depend upon our ability to persuade our fellow patriots--those who already passionately uphold the principles of liberty and who espouse the idea of unalienable rights derived from the Eternal Source of Liberty (however we conceive that Source. It will depend upon our engendering a mass movement of liberty among those who are ready to sign on to holding our servant government accountable to the founding principles of the United States as declared in our Declaration of Independence and as prescribed for government in the Constitution.

In the end, the frailty of what we have accomplished can only be obviated on the uncertain road ahead, the journey upon which will require us to expand our own personal maps across the parted seas where there be dragons, and which will lead us from the security of the fleshpots of Mitzrayim—the Hebrew word for Egypt that means the Narrow Places--and into the vast unknown lands that can, if we let them, develop in us principles that will lead us to trust a mixed multitude of ways for all of us to live liberty.

At this moment, as I stand on the edge of my known world, straining to see beyond the Dragons, I believe that those who endured the labors of the Continental Congress to the end have developed a strong and enduring bond. And this bond has the strength to be shared with all who love liberty and which will withstand the storms and squalls of the voyage yet to come.

Edited Once for Grammar and Content. EHL