R I S E   T O   T H E   R E S C U E










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.

        The '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 "blessings of 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."

        Notice 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.

        The 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:
     Honored as an abortion "champion" by NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, 2010.
     Earned a 100% pro-abortion rating from Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, 2010.
     Earned a 100% pro-abortion rating from NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, 2010, 2011.
     Earned the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia Political Action Committee, 2009.

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 line with 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

^   BACK TO TOP   ^

Authorized and paid for by Joe Glean, candidate for Delegate.
Not Authorized by any other candidate.