---- — Following the Boston Massacre in 1770, John Adams demonstrated his fealty to the rule of law – and that of the colonies – when he defended at trial the British soldiers accused of murder in the incident that sparked the American Revolution.
The administration of Barack Obama has demonstrated its fealty to the all-encompassing power of the state to continue to detain a man who produced a video that did not provoke the murder of an American ambassador on sovereign United States territory on Sept. 11, 2012.
This Tuesday, I will for the first time cast a ballot for president in Massachusetts. I will do so with great reverence for our state’s heritage in the establishment of this republic. And I will do so in the hope that my fellow citizens of the commonwealth will join me in not squandering our inheritance.
Fundamentally, the heritage of Massachusetts is allegiance to the principles of limited government with respect to sovereignty, the rule of law, and the rejection of intrusive, confiscatory edicts from a distant central government declaiming laws and orders without adherence to representative approval. Such principles were upheld and defended by Adams, who protected Boston’s reputation in defending the British soldiers, and who was instrumental in the formation of the federal government. Such principles were upheld and defended by the likes of Henry Cabot Lodge, who defended American sovereignty by opposing the statist Woodrow Wilson’s folly known as the League of Nations.
For decades, our country has suffered a long train of abuses by its government, incredibly aided and abetted by an astonishing tilt to the left by the citizens of Massachusetts, the direct beneficiaries of a golden inheritance. These abuses have come in many forms: a loss of confidence in our own sovereignty and our right to defend ourselves; an ever-increasing tax burden on the individual and the small business; bulky legislation spilling over hundreds or thousands of pages; the thousands upon thousands of regulations in The Federal Registry that follow those bills and employ battalions of lawyers to interpret, and even more bureaucrats to administer; swarms of compliance officers brandishing those regulations like a sword; the piling up of debt and the erosion of the credit of the United States; judicial fiat; a creeping encroachment into private affairs and private institutions. The last four years have only seen an increase in such policies and deeds.
This is the form of government favored by the incumbent president and local candidates such as Elizabeth Warren and John Tierney, the latter of whom also continually demonstrates his contempt for the rule of law. Such irresponsible wielding of political power is not consistent with our form of republican government, nor of the heritage and independent-mindedness of our Massachusetts forebears of freedom. Our country has been slowly and silently transformed from a representative republic to an increasingly centralized and asphyxiating social democracy.
But worse than any form of social democracy is the way in which the present administration has stood by while our nation has embarrassed, threatened, and harmed. The Obama administration’s cold inaction and dissembling concerning the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and others on sovereign U.S. territory on Sept. 11, 2012, is reason enough to disqualify Obama from another term. That no member of the president’s party, including candidates such as Warren, Tierney, or anyone else, has stood up to denounce Obama’s actions and inactions related to the outrage in Benghazi is shameful. Voters, then, must unequivocally demonstrate that the malfeasance of Obama and his corrupt administration in permitting the honor of the country and the corpse of an American ambassador to be trailed through the dust will not go unpunished, nor will the cowardly and seditious silence of his enablers and supporters. They are unworthy of being granted political power of any kind.
Simply put, voting for the likes of Obama, Warren, Tierney, etc., is to turn one’s back on one’s heritage. They are hostile to freedom and maniacally eager to impose the edicts of a distant government on what remains of a free republic. Their actions, inactions, and the policies that they advocate are antithetical to the constitutional principles of limited government so nobly won by our forefathers, antithetical to the heritage of Massachusetts. They are more in line with the thinking that led Adams, Lodge, and the balance of unknown patriots to rebel and establish and maintain this republic. Voting for a new breed of tyrants is to squander what remains of a rich bequest. Why would anyone wish to do that?
Matthew May welcomes comments at email@example.com