Rambling on about the Constitution

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

----- Barry Goldwater

That is, in all probability, the pithiest quote the good Senator has uttered in a long career of quotable observations. I've always found myself particularly attracted to it - at least since I first read the Constitution, some decades back. Now, I've never laid claim to being 'the world's smartest person' - I leave that to someone who entertains the sheeple in the Sunday rotogravure - but it seemed painfully obvious to me that even then, before the 'war on poverty' (and I tried to surrender when it came along, but they wouldn't let me), before the People Control Act of 1968, , before the absurdity of 'government funded universal health care', before 'No Child Left Behind', the government was exceeding its mandate.

The Constitution, to borrow from the vernacular, 'isn't about' what you or I may or may not do, it is not an instrument for social experimentation nor a 'living' document, it is a set of strict guidelines detailing what the government is required to do, and what it clearly and expressly is forbidden. The first ten Amendments to that Constitution do not 'grant' any rights - a government which governs by the will and at the pleasure of its constituency cannot grant or revoke rights - 'merely' recognizes those natural rights of man which far preceded the establishment of the nation. Any government - especially and specifically any government which claims legitimacy under that Constitution - that attempts to infringe on and curtail those rights has lost any claim to such legitimacy when it does.

There are provisions in that Constitution which need to be brought to the attention of our elected 'representatives', who also serve at our pleasure, as our 'hired help', and who take an oath to support and abide by the specifications of that Constitution. If your gardener, or your maid, or your driver, or your cook stole from you and lied about it when you confronted them with documented proof, just how long would they continue to work for you? If the sales force in your business, or your accountants, or your lawyers signed a contract and violated it daily, clause by clause, enriching themselves at your expense, stealing from you and distributing their ill-gotten gains among their cronies, would you let them continue drawing a paycheck, or would you see that they drew prison sentences?

A government can only hold sway with the just consent of the governed, can only maintain its legitimacy by maintaining its legitimacy. Income redistribution by extortion is illegitimate. Nanny-stateism is a pernicious abrogation of liberty. Refusal to defend the borders that define the physical limits of the nation is treason. Infringements on the right to speak freely, peaceably assemble, observe religious customs and traditions, maintain the means of personal and national defense is tyranny, pure and simple...and those who stand idly by while it happens, while the Constitution they pay lip service to without reading or comprehending it not only forfeit their right to it, they undermine ours.

More Random Musings

Some people are still flogging Esperanto as a 'universal' language - pointedly ignoring two fairly obvious points: First, it would require anyone buying into the concept to learn an artificial, 'made-up' language that has sharp contrasts with the internal logic of their 'native' language, and learn it 'from the ground up'; Second, in almost every nation on earth (with the glaring exception of the United States), English is taught as a required subject, along with whatever 'native' language(s) the students may also be taught. English is the language aircraft communicate with control towers in. English is the language international commerce is conducted in.

Hel-lo, we already have a 'universal' language, replete with components and constructions representing almost every major language group of current consequence (and some, like french, of less consequence than its country). This is precisely the sort of mental masturbation for people with no lives of their own who think (and I use the term loosely) that they know what's 'best' for all, and whose 'one size fits all' mentality never accounts for the fact that it doesn't, and wouldn't even were they in position to implement.

On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs

This is not something I've written (although I wish I had), but it is something I identify with, and am proud to associate with others who identify with it:

On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman

By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:

"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...

"Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

>> Thank you, Colonel.

And You Thought...

...that the idiots who confiscated 'GI Joe' plastic scale model 'guns' and rifle-shaped tie bars - and tried to confiscate General Joe Foss' Medal of Honor (because it looked like a 'ninja throwing star') - were dredged from the shallow end of the gene pool?

I'm no great fan of excessive and unnecessary legislation, but perhaps it's time to establish a 'felony criminal stupidity' statute. When someone who we trust with the education of our children forces his cranial extension this far through his anal sphincter, perhaps we need to give some serious thought to the 'qualifications' - and not just 'academic' - of those so entrusted.

---

---

---

---

PHOTONETDAILY
Youth suspended over sketch of gun
Officials say drawing by teen 'absolutely considered a threat'

---

Posted: August 22, 2007
5:10 p.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Offending drawing (Photo: KPHO-TV, Phoenix)

A 13-year-old boy has been suspended for three days by an Arizona public school because he sketched a picture that resembled a gun, something school officials said they "absolutely" believed could pose a threat.

According to a report by KPHO-TV in Phoenix, it's not the type of greeting the Mosteller family expected when they moved from Colorado Springs to Chandler, Ariz., a few weeks ago.

"My son is a very good boy," Paul Mosteller told the television station. "He doesn't get into trouble. There was nothing on the paper that would signify that it was a threat of any form."

The principal at Payne Junior High School kept the actual drawing, and officials with the Chandler Unified School District declined to release any information about the situation.

"Federal privacy law forbids the school or district from discussing student discipline," the station was told.

Mosteller said her son was just idly drawing pictures, and ended up with a fake laser.

"He was just basically doodling and not thinking a lot about it," she said. "We're not advocates for guns. We don't have guns in our home. We don't promote the use of guns. My son was just basically doodling on a piece of paper."

School officials who initially banned the student for five days lowered the penalty to three days after discussing the situation with the boy's father.

"I just can't believe that there wasn't another way to resolve this," Mosteller told the Associated Press. "He's so upset. The school made him feel like he committed a crime. They are doing more damage than good."

The drawing did not show blood or bullets. Nor did it show injuries or target anyone, the Mostellers said. It just resembled a gun.

Terry Locke, a spokesman for the district, told the AP the sketch was "absolutely considered a threat," and threatening words or pictures are punishable.

However, the school failed to contact police, and failed to provide counseling or an evaluation for the student to determine if he intended it as a threat, officials said.

The student's father, Ben Mosteller, said school officials told him how serious they considered the situation, and discussed the 1999 massacre at Colorado's Columbine High School, where two teens shot and killed 12 students and a teacher, and injured dozens more.

That, he said, was extreme and offensive. The family already has contacted the district's governing board about the incident.

The station said it checked the rules students must follow at school, and found there's nothing in a portion of the student handbook that addresses conduct to indicate the drawing of a weapon poses threat.

Participants in a local newspaper forum were irritated.

"If school officials believed this to be a threat, they are in violation of state law by failing to make a police report. Suspend them," said "Bobo A."

"This once great land of ours (now someone else's) gets SICKER by the day. Not the year, not the month, not the week, but by the DAY. Dennis Prager asked a very interesting question: How did the "Greatest Generation" give birth to the "Most Stupid Generation?" (my paraphrase)," added "loamy l".

This 'drawing' looks more like "Stargate SG-1"s "Daedalus" than any firearm - actual or 'conceptional' - I've ever run across. Perhaps this unprincipled Principal assumed the paper it was drawn on was now likelier to inflict the dreaded 'paper cut'? One may legitimately wonder what (if?) these cretins - both teacher and Principal - could have been 'thinking' (and I use the term loosely) when they initially reacted to the sketch. One must definitely pause in awe and wonderment at the 'conclusion' that it 'posed a threat' (to whom - Pablo Picasso?). But one must be virtually struck dumb by the penalty exacted.

When the absurdity of the situation is absorbed, a new set of questions arises: Was this unnamed Principal promoted well above his level of competence as a reward for being a 'good' teacher, or because he was totally inept at that, too - but being a union member, couldn't be fired? Were the unnamed 'school officials' conscious and/or sober? Will anyone, including the parents (who seem ovine enough not to) challenge this idiocy, and bring at minimum child abuse, defamation of character, and malfeasance, misfeasance, and lack of feasance charges against its perpetrators? Will the ACLU send its legions of legal beagles (at least the ones not enjoying their blunts and harassing the Minuteman CDG on the border) to defend Mosteller's 'right' to a government indoctrination - er, 'education'? Or will the sheeple go merrily about their business, ignoring the institutionalized imbecility rampant among our 'politically correct' institutions?

If there has been a more recent example of the crying need for a law against felony criminal stupidity, it has yet to be publicized.

Aside

A question or two has been raised about the URL for the site. Removing my tongue from my cheek long enough to address it: None of the 'good' ones were 'available', so I relied on the 'eyebrow lifting' properties of the statement to attract some slight attention. I do know a little about a lot of 'things', a lot about some, and know how to learn what I don't know, but the important factor is that I know enough to keep my mouth shut when the discussion turns to something I don't know. Now that, I consider 'smart'.

If you own it, you should know how to use it

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is once again being recognized as an right, as well it should be, and the growing number of citizens going armed can be a force for both 'crime control' and, to an extent, 'government control': As more members of the populace choose to exercise one right, so will they be more aware of their other rights, and the incursions of government on them. As with the exercise of any right, there are also responsibilities: When you choose to go armed, you take on the obligation of not only knowing when to 'use' it, but how.

Fumbling for a handgun or searching for the safety when confronted with an armed assailant may well get you killed, as well as put that firearm in the hands of a felon. Firing that sidearm without acquiring - and being certain of - your intended target may result in the death of anyone but your assailant. Mandatory training prior to acquiring government permission to carry has its place, but is nothing more than a foundation for further learning.

One of the premier venues for practical, 'real world' training is found within driving distance of Las Vegas, Nevada: Dr. Ignatius Piazza's Front Sight Institute. Providing that practical training to military, law enforcement and 'civilians', the Institute's instructors work to build both skill and confidence. For further information:

• Front Sight Firearms Training Institute


• Ignatius Piazza - founder of Front Sight


• Ignatius Piazza Blog


• Front Sight - in Guns & Ammo


• My Experience at Front Sight


• Ignatius Piazza - in Fort Worth Star Telegram


• Front Sight - in Pajaronian Register


• Ignatius Piazza - in Playboy


• Ignatius Piazza - in San Francisco Chronicle


• Front Sight - in Los Angeles Times


• Ignatius Piazza - in Forbes Magazine


• Ignatius Piazza - in El Mercurio


• Front Sight - in Financial Times


• Ignatius Piazza - in Gun World


• Front Sight - in The Mail on Sunday Review


• Front Sight - on USA Today


• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Sun


• Ignatius Piazza - in Small Arms Review


• Front Sight - in Icon Magazine


• Front Sight - in Sierra Times


• Ignatius Piazza - on World Net Daily


• Front Sight - on CNN


• Front Sight - in Cybercast News Service


• Front Sight - in Gun Web


• Front Sight - in Santa Cruz Sentinel


• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Life


• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Mercury


• Ignatius Piazza - in Handvapen Guiden


• Ignatius Piazza - in National Enquirer


• Front Sight - on BBC News


• Front Sight - in US News & World Report


• Ignatius Piazza - in Washington Post


• Front Sight - in El Pais Seminal


• Front Sight - in London Times


• Ignatius Piazza - in Las Vegas Review


• Ignatius Piazza - in Chicago Tribune


• Front Sight - in Black Belt Magazine


• Ignatius Piazza - on Reform America


• Front Sight - in New York Times


• Ignatius Piazza - in Times Democrat

Random Musings

The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Whether or not he has any military experience, and whether or not such experience has included actual combat, he is, for better or worse, unequivocally in command. A cursory reading of the Constitution - specifically the first sentence of Article II, Section 2 - makes this obvious to anyone capable of reading at a third grade level.

What the President does in his capacity as C-in-C is a reflection of who he is: Lincoln appointed commanders who would win, and left their choice of strategies and tactics to them, LBJ chose to micromanage his war down to Platoon level from the Oval Office. Teddy Roosevelt sent the 'Great White Fleet' around the world as a 'friendly show of force', FDR called for war not only on Japan, which had attacked us, but on Germany, Italy and Austria, which hadn't. Jefferson sent ships and troops to the muslim Barbary States which had declared war on us. McKinley and Roosevelt dispatched troops to the Philippines, where muslim 'Moros' had declared war on us. G.W. Bush, after a Congressional vote to declare war, sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq after muslims (is a pattern becoming apparent?) trained, supported and given sanctuary in those nations had repeatedly attacked us.

Far from being 'Bush's War', as the lamestream, drive-by media has managed to convince the shallow and easily led, this is not only the same war that islam has been waging against this nation even before we became a nation, it is the same war islam has been waging against western civilization for over a thousand years. The muslims who blew up the Marine Barracks in Beirut, the muslims who blew in the side of the USS Cole, the muslims who flew jetliners into the World Trade Center are part and parcel of the same culture that overran the Mediterranean from Jerusalem to Poitiers a millennium ago, without the redeeming qualities of their ancestors.

The United States is not Sparta, the 'warrior mentality' has never been a part of our cultural makeup. Throughout most of our history, we have desired nothing more than the peaceful pursuit of our own interests - but for most of that history, when war was thrust upon us, we responded with a ferocity that eventually garnered victory. We have also had war thrust upon us - not coincidentally - when we 'forgot' the truism dating back to the height of Pax Romana: Si vis pacem, para bellum". When we were prepared for war, whether it was Teddy Roosevelt building a dreadnought Navy or Reagan building a modern fleet of 600 ships - and the sailors to man them - we have had 'rumors of war', we have had saber rattling, but we have not had war. When military service was seen as the last refuge of rogues and misfits under FDR, we were attacked, and thrust into war. When our armed forces were pared to the bone, our defense budget gutted for social programs, our military turned into a vast social experiment and service and patriotism derided under the pseudo-bubba occupant of the Oral Office, we were attacked, and thrust into war. A war, incidentally, that may be laid at the feet of that President, but one he lacked the intestinal fortitude to pursue, and his successor inherited.

One Has to Start Somewhere

Any changes in the 'inalienable rights' presupposed by the Declaration of Independence, any infringement or curtailment of rights by the duly elected 'representatives' at any level of government, any seizure of power by such governments despite the clear and distinct prohibitions in the Constitution against such expansion of forbidden powers has been both gradual and 'interpretive'. It is incumbent on those of us still cognizant of the fact that the Constitution is, both de facto and de jure, the supreme Law of the Land, to recognize that any return to Constitutional government, any reversal of these incursions on our 'natural rights', be both gradual and accomplished within the letter and spirit of that Constitution. The alternatives are equally unlikely: An immediate nullification of all laws, regulations and ordinances which violate the Constitution cannot and would not survive the legislatures which enacted them, and armed insurrection, even if successful, would be at best a pyrrhic victory with no guaranty of the reinstatement of the Constitution as written or intended.

It continues as a matter of faith among those of earlier generations and originalist persuasion that succeeding generations have little or no concept of the intent of the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights; that ‘patriotism’ has become a dirty word, smacking of jingoism and elitism; and that military service is regarded by a nanny-state society as a haven for the unfit and the dregs of society, and those who choose it are too lazy or uneducated to succeed in the ‘real world’. It is also a misperception: While a majority of society has been indoctrinated – by unionized ‘teachers’ in government run and funded ‘education’ institutions – to believe these canards, we haven’t yet burned books or banned truth. Honest and honorable men still research and publish, parents still maintain some control over their offspring and provide the discipline and education lacking in the ‘education establishment’, and the internet has broken the stranglehold mass media has so long had on the flow of information. As pervasive as the intentional dissemination of misinformation, disinformation, half-truths and intentional falsehood is, there is also an unlimited access to fact, opinion, and free and open discussion. Even among those lacking formal education beyond elementary reading or arithmetical skills, it is generally an article of faith that ‘anything that seems too good to be true probably is’, and that anything which, on its face seems unlikely or improbable, is unlikely or improbable.

My intent in electronically ‘publishing’ this is not to ‘convert by bludgeoning with irrefutable fact’ (although there are occasions when such appears the only viable alternative), but to encourage the questioning of ‘authority’, especially when such ‘authority’ is speaking from a personal agenda, rather than established, albeit obfuscated, fact. It is also my desire to provide a forum where interested parties can exchange and discover the commonality of their interests: How, as an example, smoking bans and seat belt laws are both unsupportable government incursions on personal liberty and ‘building blocks’ of a totalitarian regime in which the government will control every aspect of what was once personal choice and individual responsibility, or how the fate of owners of ‘ugly black rifles’, ‘sporting’ shotguns and handguns is dependent on their recognizing their commonalities – the success of ‘limitations’ on one is, again, merely a step toward the limitation and eventual confiscation of all. On that subject (with apologies to Pastor Martin Niemoller):

They came for the automatic weapons and I didn't speak, because I had no automatic weapons.
They came for the handguns and I didn't speak, because I had no handguns.
They came for the hunting rifles and I didn't speak, because I had no hunting rifles.
They came for the shotguns and I didn't speak, because I had no shotguns.
They then came for the dissenters, and nobody spoke, because there were no tools of freedom left for them to speak with.