Category Language

So you call yourself a Patriot?

It seems that everywhere you turn on the internet, someone is calling himself a “patriot.”  There are patriots, patriot groups, patriotic sentiments, patriotic language, and the list goes on.

But are all of these “patriots” operating from the same definition of the word? Does it even matter?

Words do matter.  The more complacent we become about the use of the English language, the easier it becomes for the opportunists and the more devious among us to subtly (or not so subtly) hijack the language to suit their own nefarious purposes.

This can lead to very dangerous and/or counterproductive results.  Take the co-opting of the Tea Party movement by the establishment as an example.  Because most will consider the “Tea Party” movement as patriotic on faith (thanks to clever marketing), little to no research or investigation is done before carrying the banner, or doing work on behalf of, any group labeled “Tea Party.”  While the sentiment of those following groups like this is well-intentioned, it does not absolve us of the responsibility to “think before we act” to ensure our efforts are truly constructive and effective.

So for this reason (among others), I am placing a stake in the ground to define how I evaluate whether someone or something is “patriotic.”

Let’s start with Webster’s definition:


A person who loves his country, and zealously supports and defends it and its interests.

Webster’s Dictionary, 1828

There is a lot to digest in that definition dating back nearly 200 years.

“A person who loves his country…” 

When he used the word “country,” is Webster speaking of a chunk of land, a government, a people, or some combination of the three?

Digging into some of Webster’s definitions of “country” and using the context from the remainder of his definition of “patriot”, I believe the following definitions fit best:


  1. The kingdom , state or territory in which one is born; the land of nativity; or the particular district indefinitely in which one is born.(as it applies to natural-born citizens)
  2. a region of permanent habitation (as it applies to naturalized citizens)

We can see that Webster is not speaking about government when he refers to “country”.  He is clearly referring to a political jurisdiction that also includes a geographic boundary.

But how are the geographical boundaries of that land determined?  Well, in the case of our country the geographical boundaries are derived from the original thirteen states who “form[ed] a more perfect union” and the various annexations since then that are pursuant to Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution which is the basis for our political jurisdiction.

But what is a country without its people?

Merely a swath of land.  Therefore, a patriot who “loves his country” by inference loves his fellow citizens as part of that country.  To substantiate this assertion, let’s look at the case of veterans of our armed forces.  Each of them volunteers to make the ultimate sacrifice, if needed, to defend his “country”.  God-given common-sense tells us that they don’t do this merely for the land, but for their loved ones who inhabit the land, and the pursuit of their livelihoods to support these loved ones once their noble service to our country is concluded.

By the way, in order for anyone to enlist or be commissioned as an officer in the armed forces of the United States, they are required to affirm that they will “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”

Continuing with Webster’s definition of “patriot”…

“…and zealously supports and defends it…”

The word “zealously”, in my opinion, is one of the two major distinctions that I believe are lost in the current, myriad, and tepid interpretations of the word “patriot.”

According to Webster, zealously is defined as “with passionate ardor; with eagerness.”

In no interpretation of the word “zealously” is one left believing it can be demonstrated passively.  To be “zealous” about something requires active and enthusiastic work (or “animated” as Webster also describes the word “passionate“).

Isn’t it interesting that to define the activities of a patriot, Webster uses some of the same words that have been used since 1789 to codify our oaths of office pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:  “support” and “defend”.  In fact, the very first section of the very first Act of Congress was to establish this oath.  This is no coincidence.

It seems that all roads lead back to the Constitution–the nexus of those characteristics that define a patriot in the United States of America.

Clearly, to our Founding Fathers and Framers of our Constitutional Republic, the acts of “supporting and defending” the Constitution as written and with their intent, was of paramount importance.  After all, the Constitution cannot defend itself.

Finally: “…and its interests.”

This means “in the interests of the country”.  Again, since a chunk of land cannot have interests, the implication is that a patriot supports and defends the interests of the citizens of the country.  This is distinct from the interests of a government or a political party.  Because our government’s scope is limited to enumerated powers (authority) by the Constitution, there can be many situations that a patriot must support and defend that will fall outside of this scope.  This concept is summed up by the phrase “America First” but includes the principles of “Allegiance and Protection” and federalism.

So far the characteristics that define a patriot are:

  • Citizenship–A citizen of the United States who:
    • Activity–will actively and passionately support and defend:
      • the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic, and
      • the interests of his fellow citizens ahead of any other nation’s interests thereby demonstrating his love for his countrymen.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

–Thomas Paine

So what does it mean to “support and defend” the Constitution?

This is the second major distinction between the common use of the word patriot, and my understanding of the effective definition.

Again from Webster’s 1828 definitionSupport – To vindicate; to maintain; to defend successfully; as, to be able to support one’s own cause.”

A “patriot” cannot passively sit by as the Constitution is attacked, undermined, usurped, infringed upon, or directly violated and still claim to be supporting it.  It is not enough to be mad about it.  But this begs the question: “how will one know if this is happening?”

There is a two-part answer:

Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine

  1.  A patriot must pay attention to politics in order to know something is afoot
  2.  A patriot must know and understand the Constitution to determine if it is in jeopardy

And once a patriot becomes aware of such an attack on his Constitution, by his oath of allegiance, he is committed to a course of defending it until such time as the threat or violation is neutralized.

This is a significant undertaking, but we were warned by Thomas Paine who said:

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.  “

So be very careful when calling yourself a “patriot” for you will have committed to course that will last your entire lifetime.

Truth be told, all who pledge allegiance to our Republic are duty-bound to “support and defend” it, but by proclaiming to the world you are a patriot, you receive a double-dose of scrutiny.

But while this is a heavy burden to bear, you do not have to do it alone.  Working together with other patriots in an organized, common direction and aligned to the same strategy makes for more effective use of our time in “support[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

Visit to learn more.

Read More

The “Race” to the Bottom for America

Are you tired yet of every racial grievance making its way into the political arena to try to score political points? Tired of people using race as an excuse to justify poor behavior like tearing down or defacing historical monuments? Tired of the double-standards, hypocrisy, and the dredging up of historical animosities to perpetuate racial divides?

We are in a “race” to the bottom in America, and we’re getting there fast!

Recently, during two school assemblies at Glen Allen high school in Henrico, VA, administrators played a four-minute, “racially-charged” video created by the African American Policy Forum (AAPF) portraying any non-Caucasoid American as a victim of discrimination and white privilege. The title of the video? “Structural Discrimination: The Unequal Opportunity Race

There is too much to dismantle about this blatant “error in judgement” on the part of school administrators, but let us try to at least discuss the major problems.

Reportedly, the purpose for showing the video was to educate about American history and racial discourse for Black History Month.

Now, because I am a firm believer that words still have meaning I want to take just a moment to define the word “race” in order to clarify how it ought to be used, and to illustrate how it is being completely hijacked for the purposes of the racial grievance industry.

Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines race as “The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock.”   Now, consider that the current forensic anthropological classification of the 3 races are:  Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid.

Noah Webster

Noah Webster

The “stock” (or progenitors) of the 3 races are Shem, Ham, and Japheth who were the sons of Noah.  Negroids are descended from the line of Ham, Mongoloids are descended from the line of Shem, and Caucasoids are descended from the line of Japheth.  Obviously, today the races have greatly intermingled which is why forensic anthropologists must use the size and shape of various bones structures such as the upper jaw and cheekbones in order to determine from which race a person descends.

Yes, you read that correctly– even though the grievance industry uses the word “race” to describe the color of a person’s skin, the pigmentation alone does not determine race.

By way of comparison, the word “racism” does not even exist in Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.  As you may have guessed, this word has only been used recently (since the 1930s) in its current inappropriate context.  One of the problems with creating new words that are vague in nature or lack a precise definition is that it allows anyone during the period of its earliest usage to hijack it for their own purposes.  While the reasonable person would expect that the word “racism” deals with the 3 different races, the actual application of the word by the racial grievance industry changes depending on which classification of people are attempting to extort benefits from their counterparts in the other classifications.  On one day the classification could be by ethnicity, yet on another it could be by nationality, skin color, or a geographic region their ancestors came from.

“Racism” is just a convenient word to incite fear in those who concern themselves with political correctness.

So let’s allow a gracious definition of the word “racism” so we might continue this discussion and further dismantle the motives of the school administrators and the premises behind the video itself.

Other than trying to align an individual’s identity with the pigmentation of their skin rather than their citizenship and allegiance to the Unites States, what purpose is served by acknowledging “Black History Month” in the school system? Should we then have “White History Month,” “Yellow History Month,” “Brown History Month,” and “Red History Month” as well?  Perhaps we should reorganize our calendar to allow enough months for each self-identified victim class to have their own month to air perceived grievances? After all, wouldn’t that be fair?  (More on fairness later)

Why should it matter if a person is descended from sub-Saharan Africans, Europeans, or indigenous peoples from Latin America? Isn’t it more important that the American history we learn is about America and how Americans have arrived at our current set of circumstances?

Of course, like every other nation, our history involves strife between nations, races, and ideologies (e.g. War of 1812, slavery, politics), as well as strife within a nation (e.g. the Civil War).  Every rational American literate in our nation acknowledges the political, martial, social, and moral obstacles we have overcome to get where we are today.  Yet, it is the current choices we make as individuals (guided by our principles and values) that define us–not one or more snapshots in the history of our nation, or the pigmentation in our skin.


Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” –Dr. Martin Luther King

So, if we accept that each of us should be defined by the “content of [our] character” as evidenced by our current choices, and not by mistakes we made in the past, how can our entire nation be judged differently?  Only through hypocrisy can both be accepted.  Is not the United States (as our name implies) made up of the several states, which in turn are comprised of us as individuals?  President Thomas Jefferson said it best in his letter to George Logan in 1816.

President Thomas Jefferson

President Thomas Jefferson

“It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings collected together are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately” –President Thomas Jefferson in The Works of Thomas Jefferson, pg. 43

If we are truly interested in teaching history for the sake of learning from its teachings, shouldn’t we spend some time on the former Yugoslavia and how its ethnic divides gave rise to the term “balkanization?”  Perhaps it is not a great idea to promulgate the perceived injustices of various races, ethnicities, or any other arbitrary classification of peoples living together.  As we have learned from even recent history, there are severe consequences.

So, back to the video…

The major premise of the video is clearly evident in the title “Structural Discrimination: The Unequal Opportunity Race”

I don’t think this warrants much time, but the implication is that some form of discrimination is built into the structure of America, and that somehow there is a race afoot where different classes of individuals have unequal opportunities to “win.”

Based on the content of the video, the “race” seems to be about acquiring wealth.  While I do not personally believe that this is the race we are running in life, for the sake of our discussion, let’s give the benefit of the doubt to the African American Policy Forum and assume that the wealth of which they speak is that which is necessary to support a person through his lifetime.

After watching this video, somehow we are expected to arrive at the conclusion that the pigmentation of a person’s skin may somehow cause an individual to have an unequal opportunity to acquire the wealth necessary to support himself.

Since the video is about racial discourse, let’s put our “race” glasses on and see what we can learn.

There are four actors in the video:

  • one pale-skinned male and one pale-skinned female runner
    • We will presume both are Caucasoids although we are unable to be sure without our forensic anthropology measurements
  • one slightly darker male runner who could be Latino or from the south of Asia
    • Perhaps we are to presume he is Mongoloid, but again, who can know what race he is without measurements;
  • one even darker-skinned female runner who might be of African descent
    • We are to presume she is of the Negroid race;

This is the part of the problem with the racial grievance industry…they throw around vague and nondescript terms like “race” and “racism” without informing the public of how they are using the term.  Then when you point out a flaw in the premise of their argument by saying something like, “how do you know what race these runners are?”, they will inform you that their definition of race has changed to the color of skin.  The problem with this tactic is, where do you draw the line in shades of color? Can a light-skinned Irishman call a tan Italian a racist? Can a dark-skinned Latino call a native Central American a racist?  This is why the grievance industry must constantly change the definitions of the “injured” party or allow them to self-identify in order to keep the industry alive and profitable.

booker-t-washington greivance

From My Larger Education, Being Chapters from My Experience (1911) by Booker T. Washington, pg. 118

Back to the race…

So, when the race starts, the time on the clock is 1492, which is supposed to be symbolic of the discovery of America by Europeans (Caucasoids).  The implication? That the “structural discrimination” began as soon as Columbus arrived to America.  However, no mention is made of the discrimination that took place between indigenous tribes on the continent before or since that date.  In that era, discrimination took the form of violent inter-tribal warfare, and it is only the lack of modern technology (gunpowder) initially that prevented the “discrimination” from claiming even more lives.

Certainly the AAPF is not suggesting that discrimination from within a race is acceptable are they?  That only discrimination from a separate race is frowned upon?  Because they do not mention this discrimination at all! But then again, consider the lack of outcry from the “Black Lives Matter” proponents about the significant amount of deaths caused by individuals with the same (or similar) pigmentation in their skin...

Read More

Words Still Have Meaning

Can we all agree that words have meaning and that changing them to suit those in our populace who seek to avoid responsibility for their actions only helps blur the line between good and evil?

Good. Next question: why do we allow the words like “gay” to be co-opted into a euphemism for “homosexual” or even the original word for it “sodomite”?

After all, who could argue with  Noah Webster?

What we are really talking about in light of the recent SCOTUS opinion is “marriages between sodomites”– not “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage”.

Even the whole national “conversation” has been focused on the gender of the sodomites instead of their elective predisposition to commit “crimes against nature” as Webster so eloquently put it.

It was these crimes that our Judeo-Christian society originally enacted laws against for good reason.

SOD’OMY, noun A crime against nature.

–Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828

Yes, there is a negative connotation to the word “sodomite” because they are committing crimes against “Nature and Nature’s God.” The connotation was intended by our forefathers.  It is the same with words like “illegal alien” (which is the term used for them in the United States Code 8 USC).  Somehow we have started calling them all sorts of nonsense like:

Noah Webster


  • illegal immigrant – an immigrant is someone who comes here legally with the intent to assimilate
  • undocumented immigrant – see above
  • undocumented worker – not all of them are working or want to work for that matter
  • guest worker – they are not our guests and see above
  • seasonal labor – in which season do they return home?
  • etc

We can love a sinner and still recognize and name his sin for what it is.

Do not bow to pressure because a spade doesn’t want to be called a spade!

Read More