Under-achievement...the new normal

Written by Sybele Capezzutti on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher’s note:  I have been blessed to meet a number of really brilliant people via social media.  Sybele Capezzutti is one of those.  She is a hard working single mother who is at once very down to earth, intelligent, talented, and drop dead gorgeous.

In this very brief and to the point commentary, she lays out in no uncertain terms how we have become a society that applauds mediocrity and ignores the extraordinary.  

I couldn’t have said it better myself. 

Sybele Capezzutti:  As someone that tries to always be informed about what is going on in the World in and in our Country I find myself constantly wondering how some things got to the point they are now…

We currently have 46 million people collecting government assistance, lack of skilled labor, college graduates without any critical thinking skills, an astonishing lack of work ethics, we’re fighting a war using minimal effort to win, corruption and misconduct in government agencies go unpunished, bogus unemployment numbers, the lowest workforce participation rate since 1978, and the list goes on.

It was not until something happened in my personal work environment that I realized that every one of these problems were somehow related to one basic flaw in our society, amazingly this is a flaw that was created on purpose, calculated, planned, promoted and exercised, until it became the new normal.

So here we are we’ve successfully embraced a culture of underachievement!

We’ve started with our education system by eliminating competition, everyone deserves a medal just for participating and the “no child left behind” program incentivizes teachers to pass a student that has not performed as needed. Then we’ve lowered the standards for everything else, military enlistment, background checks to work for government agencies, what kind of immigrants to welcome into our society, and let’s not forget what in my humble opinion has done the most damage… the victimization of certain groups of people, therefore removing personal responsibility and giving them an unfair advantage over the ones who actually want to succeed by their own merit. Overall our government has created an overgenerous reinsurance policy for underachieving people. What I find baffling is how most people fail to see that achievement is directly related to dignity or lack thereof. 

As a woman, an immigrant and single mother, I’ve never felt the need to claim the victim status which would have been promptly handed to me if I wanted it, but I was not raised to be an underachiever, nor do I understand why anyone would embrace that mentality or even impose it on our future generations!

We have a serious problem in our Nation, one that needs to be dealt with before we become a third World Country, and trust me, that is exactly the direction we are going if we continue to have low expectations from our Citizens. Being raised in a third World Country myself I can tell you that the victim status and low expectation in terms of performance is exactly what generates a people that will vote their way into servitude in exchange for what they believe are free “offerings” from their handlers.

It’s time we start rewarding exceptional performance instead of punishing it, it’s time we stop seeing some people as victims and allow them to excel on their own merit, it’s time we stop incentivizing laziness and lack of ambition, it’s time we stop rewarding underachievement, it’s time we remember what built this Country and made it exceptional, it’s time we welcome success back into our society!

Add a comment

Liberty Taken For Granted Is Liberty Lost

Written by David DiCrescenzo on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher’s note:  I had the privilege of meeting John C. Nix last weekend during the Tea Party Convention in SC.  In the brief article that follows, John discusses several of the ways that our government is systematically tearing away at the fabric of our culture by implementing programs that circumvent the Constitution.  

John C. Nix is one of a growing number of grassroots activists in America, and is not one to sit still and watch things happen.  

Among his many accomplishments John has been a guest contributor to the Kinston Free Press since 2008.  He posts daily YouTube videos at "John Nix & The Daily News Fix" in which he expresses a constitutionally conservative view on current political events.  He currently serves as Chairman, Kinston Utilities Advisory Committee; Vice-Chair, Kinston Planning Board; member, NCGOP Executive Committee; member, Republican Liberty Caucus of  North Carolina; President, CSS Neuse Foundation.

He may be reached by email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

We at The Patriots Press thank him for allowing us to share this with our readers.  

John C. Nix:  Liberty Taken For Granted Is Liberty Lost

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong".  This quote by Voltaire, a Frenchman whose real name was François-Marie Arouet, speaks to the dangers of challenging an entrenched overreaching government while her citizens gradually lose liberty.  An example comes in the form of an unconstitutional mandated tax called the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare which infringes on every citizen's liberty.  This is government forcing you to live the way it thinks you should.  The federal government can fine or tax citizens for not complying with the mandate.  

Even if you agree that everyone should have the right to medical insurance, the Affordable Care Act is a socialist model, an obtrusive assault on individual liberty and a fiscal disaster.  Living off the backs of others is a sure way to bring America to her knees.

Another intrusion to individual liberty is the Common Core curriculum for public schools.  As many parents are finding out, these federal curriculum standards impose revisionist history on students and puts a kibosh on critical thinking while focusing on the collective.  It promotes blind acceptance of an unchallenged curriculum with many parents now questioning its effectiveness.  Common Core is another attempt at government control over the minions.  Many states have challenged the idea but will lose federal dollars by rejecting Common Core in part or in whole.  Do your own research and be sure to watch how the lure of federal dollars entraps the minds of our elected officials and their moral integrity in their decision-making.  

The Constitution affords us many rights but special interest groups are constantly attacking those rights.  Designed to protect against a rogue government, our constitution affords us the second amendment, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  But each state sets their own provisions as to who can own a gun, where it may be used, how it must be transported and so on.  Reciprocity for concealed carry is still an issue when traveling through or to different states.  The right to protect my family from imminent danger is one granted by God, not man and my liberty to do so shall not be infringed upon or limited.

What about religion?  The second amendment protects the first amendment which, in part, guarantees our right to worship freely.  We are founded on Judeo-Christian principles.  What does that have to do with liberty you ask?  Our Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  Unless it is further amended, an outside group, ideology or entity has no authority to engage in a separate form of government or judicial system.  Islamic law has no place in this country, though Muslims are instructed in their Quran or holy book to spread Islam throughout the land and push out all other religions.  Islam is an ideology, not a religion.  Islamic Sharia law, which the French have allowed to infiltrate, will put the western free world in further danger if allowed.  The French have left themselves open to "creeping Sharia" by caving in to Islamic demands.  French citizens allowed the government to determine what God-given rights they could keep.  In Paris this past week we saw unarmed police being brutally murdered along with innocent citizens.  Only the terrorists had weapons.  As Americans, we must covet our liberty by protecting our constitutional rights or they will be no more.  We cannot "COEXIST" with an ideology that kills for no good reason.

What can we do? We can support and elect those representatives whom will closely adhere to Constitutional principles.  We can begin in own communities by serving on a local board or commission.  If not for complacency, the many vacant volunteer seats would be filled.  Government won't run on autopilot and your elected officials need oversight, like it or not.  If you have blind faith in your elected representatives to spend your tax dollars wisely and stand watch over your liberties then you shouldn't complain when your taxes increase, your land is taken by eminent domain, and paramilitary police are knocking on your door for a random search of your home.  It's just that simple. 

"We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Add a comment

Principles of Constitutionalism: The Moral Basis for the Constitution in Natural Law

Written by Tim Dunkin on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher's note:  This is the second in a series of discussions on the State of America and the mis-application of the U.S. Constitution.  Tim Dunkin has very meticulously laid out this subject in easy to understand terms.

Tim Dunkin:  In the previous installment of this series, we saw that the Constitution, as the foundational law of the land, is to enjoy a position of primacy over and above any and all other laws, offices, and authorities in our nation.  Yet, the question may be asked, why is this so?  The question may be answered by looking to founding ideas about natural law, from which then flows the idea of natural rights which our Constitution enshrines and affirms (but does not “give”).  

From Cicero to Blackstone, natural law theory was perhaps THE key concept in the thinking of the generation which fought the Revolution against Britain and then established our constitutional republican form of government. But what is natural law?  Essentially, natural law theory embodies a set of related ideas about the fundamental origination of “law” as an ordering principle in the universe.  This law is universal – it applies everywhere and at all times, explicitly rejecting the concept of “moral relativism” – because it originated from the God who created the universe.  For Cicero and other pre-Christian pagan thinkers, this god was pantheistic or panentheistic in nature, but the concept easily transferred over into Christian thinking from earliest times due to the compatibility with the Christian conception of a monotheistic, all-powerful, all-knowing, and over-archingly sovereign God who created the universe and continues to overrule and superintend it.   

For the colonists, natural law was considered to be completely compatible, and in many cases coeval, with God’s law as given by revelation.  In his Commentaries on the Laws of England (which were extremely popular and influential in American intellectual circles both before and after the Revolution), the jurist William Blackstone identified God as the Author of both natural law and special revelation, essentially arguing that they came from the same Source,

“..This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine Providence, which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in divers manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in its present corrupted state since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of the ages."

What Blackstone is arguing is that there is an essential unity between natural law and special revelation – they come from the same God, and therefore cannot contradict each other.  Natural law was believed by these later theorists to be the unspoken, yet immutably true, outflowing of God’s purposes and benevolence toward man. Further, however, natural law was understood to be applicable to all men, in all nations, at all times.  Blackstone again wrote,

"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over the entire globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this;... upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these."

Elsewhere, Rufus King, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, said,

"The...law established by the Creator...extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind...This is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control." 

Because natural law was understood to be universal, it was therefore understood to exist outside of and before any human governments.  From the time of Hobbes onward, a commonly used picture (treated more as a logical hypothesis than as an actual chronological fact) to describe man in his primal position was that of the “state of nature,” in which mankind exists apart from government. In this state of nature, man was in full possession of all of his natural rights - those rights such as property, self-assertion, self-defense, etc. which were the common property of all, as a result of their creation at the hand of God.  However, in the state of nature, there was no limit to what a man might do or take, apart from his inability to force himself onto someone else through raw power.  As the Rev. John Hurt stated in 1777,

“The miseries of the state of nature are so evident, that there is no occasion to display them; every man is sensible that violence, rapine, and slaughter must be continually practiced where no restraints are provided to curb the inordinancy of self-affection.”

In other words, in the state of nature apart from some sort of regulation of his behavior, mankind will always tend towards the assertion of his own rights, even to the harm and death of other men. This commonly understood proposition rested on the fact that even though man is created in the image of God, and enjoys from his Creator the inalienable rights that God granted through His own natural law, man nevertheless has a sin nature that leads him to abuse this power and to seek to tyrannize over other men.  The denial of the rights of others were those things especially that were forbidden by Scripture – murdering, rape, theft, extortion, etc.  A “tyrant” in both the thinking of the ancients as well as modern liberty philosophers, was a man who stepped outside the boundaries of his own rights and infringed on those of another.

Add a comment

Principles of Constitutionalism: The Primacy of the Constitution

Written by Tim Dunkin on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher's note:  This is the first in a series of discussions on the State of America and the mis-application of the U.S. Constitution.  Tim Dunkin has done an amazing job of spelling it out so that even liberals will get it.

Tim Dunkin:  The United States of America are in a bad way.  All around us we are seeing the fruits of a people who have forgotten the first principles that gave our nation that it had originally.   We were founded as a constitutional republic.  What this means is that our entire political system, in which we participate indirectly, is supposed to be governed by the Constitution.  Yet, we have strayed from this, and many, many people in this nation do not even really understand either the purpose or the workings of that document, because they have never learned them, nor even thought about them.

One of my desires is to increase awareness of what the Constitution means, and how it is to be rightly applied.  As such, I have conceived of the idea of trying to present a series of articles devoted to explaining the principles which underlie our constitutionalism, that effort to regain and then maintain our nation's traditional adherence to the Constitution and the liberty worldview which flows from it.  

To begin this series, I want to begin at the beginning (of course).  If we as conservatives and liberty lovers, people who want to educate those around us back toward a more constitutional view of our political system, are to succeed in this goal, then we need to have a firm grasp of the fundamentals of our own philosophy.  

So before anything else is said about the Constitution or how to apply it or what any of its particular parts mean, we must first firmly settle in our own hearts and minds upon the principle of the primacy of that document in the earthly laws and organization of government in these United States. 

Simply put – there is nothing in any subsidiary law made by Congress, in any executive agency, in any executive order which the President may wish to make, that overrules the Constitution.  From an under the sun perspective, in the United States the Constitution is THE standard against which everything aspiring to the status of law must be measured.  In 1886, the Supreme Court plainly stated this principle,

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." (Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425)

Bluntly, if a law or other act of government contradicts the Constitution, then that act, law, statute, regulation, or whatever else is null and void.  

Let's think a little bit about how that applies.  Obviously, an act of Congress that contradicts the plain wording of the Constitution is a dead letter on its face.  So should an executive order from the President.  So should administrative rules made by federal agencies.  That much is easy to understand.

Add a comment

St. Swisher Sweets and the Lies That Set Ferguson on Fire

Written by David DiCrescenzo on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher's note:  Tim Dunkin is an occasional contributor to The Patriots Press.  As always, his thoughts are insightful and right on target.  In today's brief article, Tim discusses the Ferguson debacle in very clear, concise terms and dispels a lot of the nonsense.  

I could not have said it better myself.

Tim Dunkin:  Now that the smoke seems to be clearing somewhat from the remains of what used to be Ferguson, Missouri, we as a society find ourselves once again witnessing a travesty built upon falsehoods and a willingness on the part of some in our nation to create discord and mistrust for their own selfish ends.  Unfortunately, these efforts have resulted in great destruction to property, physical harm and death to several individuals, and a widening of the racial rift that threatens to balkanize our country. 

Let’s be honest here – the blame for all of this can be laid squarely at the feet of the Left. The fault for this is borne by a President and his “Just Us” Department which actively fomented the rioting and looting.  It also lies with the racial grievance industry and its current CEO, the “Reverend” Al Sharpton.  Likewise, fault for the death and destruction is shared by the so-called “social justice” warriors that crowd of left-wing trustafarian white college kids who specialize in protesting and engineering civil strife as they prepare for their long and fruitful careers in the field of Postmodern Social Deconstructive Theory (or whatever).  

And this entire movement to make Ferguson emblematic of the problems caused by “white privilege” and its attendant “hostility” toward African-Americans has been, is, and will almost assuredly continue to be built completely upon lies.  Literally, the entire structure of the Left’s narrative about Ferguson is false.  It’s nothing more than a sick, deadly combination of wishful thinking and purposeful falsehood.  

The first lie about Ferguson was that anyone on the Left actually cared about the outcome of the grand jury proceedings, or that its findings were going to have any effect on their opinions.  For liberals, it was already a foregone conclusion – the only job the jury had was to “do the right thing” and vote to indict Darren Wilson, regardless of what the actual evidences might or might not say.  The Left did not care in the least about the rule of law, the rules of evidence, or facts as they actually exist – only the narrative mattered, and the narrative was already determined from the very beginning.  

The grand jury – which was not “cherry-picked,” but had actually already been seated prior to the time that the shooting in Ferguson even took place – spent months hearing the evidence.  They listened to dozens of eyewitness statements.  They heard the forensic evidences, the autopsies, the expert reports, and the DNA findings.  And this multiracial grand jury came to the conclusion that there was not cause to render a “true bill,” i.e. sufficient evidence to indict and proceed to trial.  Yet, the left-wing fanatics in this country don’t care about all that.  They don’t care about evidences, about facts, about truth.

Add a comment