Not to put too fine a point on it, but does anyone in the lamestream, drive-by media possess the integrity to place the blame for the 'big three automakers' going down the tubes where it belongs? Autos were more fuel efficient before they became mobile computers with platinum exhausts (have you priced platinum lately?). Government interference - in the form of mandated seat belts (a law that clearly and specifically violated Amendment XIV - we are not the 'property' of the State to be dictated to) and air bags (the mechanical kind, not mothers-in-law) and rapacious trial lawyers suing everyone but the individual responsible for a preventable accident have ballooned costs (and every cost to the auto maker is recouped in spades by cost to the purchaser). And leave us not forget the unions, whose absurd 'demands' for $35 per hour, guaranteed jobs for high school dropouts turning lugnuts onto wheels - plus an equivalent amount in 'benefits' - has driven the price of 'basic transportation' beyond the price paid for a house only a few years ago.
Before demanding our sympathy for all the jobs to be lost if the government fails to shell out a few billions extorted from the populace for corporate welfare, perhaps the unions might ponder on how their greed led us here. Perhaps that selfsame government might consider that its illicit nanny-state policies pushed us down that path. Perhaps, of course, before that happens, we might also be overrun with pixies, faeries, unicorns, honest politicians and similar fictional creatures.
19 November 2008
17 November 2008
What Makes Us Different
The following was originally written to a supporter, disappointed that I wasn't elected, regarding what we, as private citizens and Americans, 'can do'.
Unlike the Europeans, we have the 'tools' to resist subjugation - by 'invasion' or by legislation - whether or not we have the will to use them is another question. Unfortunately, it's not only muslims that get 'special privileges' here - they're handed out to blacks, to women, to union members, to any self-described 'minority' that agitates determinedly enough. In effect, the descendants of those 'old, dead white Europeans' are the niggers of today, and too many welcome it.
For the rest of us, there are the 'four boxes of freedom': The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and finally, if necessary, the bullet box. Those of us who can take the first and drive whomever we can to the second - which is why I'm at every gun show. AZCDL was in some part responsible for Arizona turning more conservative while the country made a hard left this election - we're more effective, apparently, than the NRA - but we need to convince our friends and neighbors to band together in 'pressure groups' - formally organized ones or not - to hold our elected representatives' feet to the fire and realize that they work for us, and if they violate their oaths of office, they will lose the office, or worse.
Rather than continue the sermon this is turning into, I'll summarize: Now is the time to start working to find and support candidates for 2010, to organize, and to begin contacting your legiscritters to let them know what you expect of them, and the standards to which you intend to hold them.
Unlike the Europeans, we have the 'tools' to resist subjugation - by 'invasion' or by legislation - whether or not we have the will to use them is another question. Unfortunately, it's not only muslims that get 'special privileges' here - they're handed out to blacks, to women, to union members, to any self-described 'minority' that agitates determinedly enough. In effect, the descendants of those 'old, dead white Europeans' are the niggers of today, and too many welcome it.
For the rest of us, there are the 'four boxes of freedom': The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and finally, if necessary, the bullet box. Those of us who can take the first and drive whomever we can to the second - which is why I'm at every gun show. AZCDL was in some part responsible for Arizona turning more conservative while the country made a hard left this election - we're more effective, apparently, than the NRA - but we need to convince our friends and neighbors to band together in 'pressure groups' - formally organized ones or not - to hold our elected representatives' feet to the fire and realize that they work for us, and if they violate their oaths of office, they will lose the office, or worse.
Rather than continue the sermon this is turning into, I'll summarize: Now is the time to start working to find and support candidates for 2010, to organize, and to begin contacting your legiscritters to let them know what you expect of them, and the standards to which you intend to hold them.
07 November 2008
More Hypocrisy - From the 'Right'
The latest conservative plaint is that we need another Reagan, a 'great communicator' for this generation. It would help if they came out of their ivory towers and listened.
Far be it from me to pretend to the mantle, but the reaction at 'Republican' meetings and the 2008 Gun Rights Policy Conference are anything to judge by, my 'G-d, Guns and Guts' harangue has energized a crowd or two, and my presentations on the Bill of Rights (or, as it has in practice become, the 'list of permissions') to national and international Mensa conventions have garnered respect - and in some cases, understanding - of the document across the political spectrum.
Coupled with the failure to listen, the 'party' - at national, state and county level - is afflicted with tunnel vision, focusing on 'electable' candidates rather than taking a broader look at candidates at all levels who represent the ideals they pay lip service to. In Arizona's Legislative District 27, taking no public funding and running a one-man campaign on under $1000, I pulled almost 20% of the vote against two well-entrenched and well publicized incumbents - burying the ultraliberal who outspent me 20-to-1 and garnered just over 5%. What 'help' did I get from 'the party'? What publicity? What money? What, are you kidding?
It wasn't just me - Gene Chewning, running to unseat the meskin street thug misrepresenting Congressional District 7 since it was formed, had democrats clamoring to sign his nominating petition. He actually had the chance to unseat an incumbent unpopular with his own party, with a little support. Unfortunately, the county party adamantly refused to acknowledge the 'importance' of any race not against the one-term incumbent in CD 7. I like and respect Tim Bee, but there are two CDs - thanks to the gerrymandering redistricting pen - dividing not only Pima County, but the city of Tucson, and one of them, in the eyes of the Pima County Republican 'leadership', apparently counts for naught...as do any State Legislative Districts the headquarters building is not located within.
If the Republican party is to continue as a viable organization, without repeatedly shooting itself in both feet, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and most of all, maintain some semblance of its founding principles, it's time for a correction - forcibly if necessary - of its current cranio-rectal inversion.
Far be it from me to pretend to the mantle, but the reaction at 'Republican' meetings and the 2008 Gun Rights Policy Conference are anything to judge by, my 'G-d, Guns and Guts' harangue has energized a crowd or two, and my presentations on the Bill of Rights (or, as it has in practice become, the 'list of permissions') to national and international Mensa conventions have garnered respect - and in some cases, understanding - of the document across the political spectrum.
Coupled with the failure to listen, the 'party' - at national, state and county level - is afflicted with tunnel vision, focusing on 'electable' candidates rather than taking a broader look at candidates at all levels who represent the ideals they pay lip service to. In Arizona's Legislative District 27, taking no public funding and running a one-man campaign on under $1000, I pulled almost 20% of the vote against two well-entrenched and well publicized incumbents - burying the ultraliberal who outspent me 20-to-1 and garnered just over 5%. What 'help' did I get from 'the party'? What publicity? What money? What, are you kidding?
It wasn't just me - Gene Chewning, running to unseat the meskin street thug misrepresenting Congressional District 7 since it was formed, had democrats clamoring to sign his nominating petition. He actually had the chance to unseat an incumbent unpopular with his own party, with a little support. Unfortunately, the county party adamantly refused to acknowledge the 'importance' of any race not against the one-term incumbent in CD 7. I like and respect Tim Bee, but there are two CDs - thanks to the gerrymandering redistricting pen - dividing not only Pima County, but the city of Tucson, and one of them, in the eyes of the Pima County Republican 'leadership', apparently counts for naught...as do any State Legislative Districts the headquarters building is not located within.
If the Republican party is to continue as a viable organization, without repeatedly shooting itself in both feet, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and most of all, maintain some semblance of its founding principles, it's time for a correction - forcibly if necessary - of its current cranio-rectal inversion.
06 November 2008
We're Back
Been a while, but campaigning for a seat in the State House tends to take up a little time.
I have some bad feelings about the way the national elections turned out, and frankly, I think the Constitution is in for a rough time over the next few years. Whether or not it survives, especially in its depleted state, is an area of grave concern, but whether there is the will and the means to allow it to survive is a greater one.
The fact that we now have the first President 'elected' by the media is a benchmark that brings no pleasure to achieve, nor is the fact that while the campaign raised an appalling amount of money, almost half of it was from countries with interests inimical to ours and donors like 'Mickey Mouse' and 'Dick Tracy'. Unfortunately, there will be no investigation, there will be no accountability, there will be no reason for an equally unscrupulous individual to repeat the felony, as the new coward-in-chief enlarged on those of the administration of the last days of the XX Century. And leave us not ignore the 'voters': I personally witnessed 'volunteers' wearing 'acorn' and 'move on' identification at two bus terminals 'registering' the homeless and non-English speakers by filling out, and in some cases signing, the forms for them. Any investigation? Not with a Governor who'd prostitute herself for a position in the administration.
The President-elect's positions are clear - everything he said, everything he did, everyone he claimed as friend and mentor show him for the lying hypocrite he is. I have, and have always had, the greatest respect for the office of the Presidency - more than the individual preparing to fill it - but as of the moment, only contempt for him and those who saw fit to elect him.
Sorry for the lack of eloquence, but (see first paragraph), I'm tired.
I have some bad feelings about the way the national elections turned out, and frankly, I think the Constitution is in for a rough time over the next few years. Whether or not it survives, especially in its depleted state, is an area of grave concern, but whether there is the will and the means to allow it to survive is a greater one.
The fact that we now have the first President 'elected' by the media is a benchmark that brings no pleasure to achieve, nor is the fact that while the campaign raised an appalling amount of money, almost half of it was from countries with interests inimical to ours and donors like 'Mickey Mouse' and 'Dick Tracy'. Unfortunately, there will be no investigation, there will be no accountability, there will be no reason for an equally unscrupulous individual to repeat the felony, as the new coward-in-chief enlarged on those of the administration of the last days of the XX Century. And leave us not ignore the 'voters': I personally witnessed 'volunteers' wearing 'acorn' and 'move on' identification at two bus terminals 'registering' the homeless and non-English speakers by filling out, and in some cases signing, the forms for them. Any investigation? Not with a Governor who'd prostitute herself for a position in the administration.
The President-elect's positions are clear - everything he said, everything he did, everyone he claimed as friend and mentor show him for the lying hypocrite he is. I have, and have always had, the greatest respect for the office of the Presidency - more than the individual preparing to fill it - but as of the moment, only contempt for him and those who saw fit to elect him.
Sorry for the lack of eloquence, but (see first paragraph), I'm tired.
03 September 2008
The More things change...
Almost two and a half centuries ago, as the hand of a government far removed from its subjects systematically deprived them of the rights granted them by a far higher power, a handful of brave and honorable men drafted a document which altered the course of history. Today, a regime even further removed from its citizens and demonstrably more oppressive levies taxes far higher than those rebelled against; more arbitrarily imprisons its citizens; denies more fundamental rights and with force or threat of force relegates those rights to privileges, revocable at whim. A nation subjugated by its employees, a nation with borders so porous as to not exist, a nation whose elected representatives have ceded their duties and responsibilities to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, a nation perverting its very charter is no longer a nation, but a satrapy in bondage.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. That the repetition be positive rather than chaotic, fruitful rather than destructive, herewith:
The unanimous Declaration of the fifty united STATES of AMERICA,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for a nation to dissolve its governing body, established under the aegis of a written Constitution which they have taken solemn oaths to uphold and protect, and to replace it with a government faithful to the letter and spirit of such Constitution, recognizing the separate and equal powers so clearly delineated, so clearly defined and explained, respecting the rights and liberties of the People which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the dissolution.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these joint and several States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their present Government. The history of the present Legislature, of the present Judiciary, of the present Executive is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
They have refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
They have forbidden Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, superseding such Laws clearly within the dominion of the individual State with federal dictates in clear opposition to the desires of the citizens of such States; and far in excess of the Powers and Authority clearly specified.
They have enacted other Laws for the accommodation of large classes of people, granting such people inordinate Representation in the Legislature, and establishing for them such specious ‘rights’ unavailable to the majority of the citizenry, establishing a tyranny of mediocrity.
They have called together a legislative body the primary concern of which has been its own perpetuation, committed more to the appearance of ‘taking action’ and less to valid accomplishment, extorting from the populace to fund a public treasury to sack for the purpose of self perpetuation, at times unusual and uncomfortable and for those they are alleged to represent, for their own convenience and amusement, for the sole purpose of maintaining their positions.
They have fixated on partisanship and patronage to the detriment of liberty and obligation to the principles under which their positions have been created, repeatedly invading on the rights of the people.
They have refused to cause others to be elected; undermining such processes as established by law for nomination and election of such candidates, whereby the Legislative powers, have been usurped from those elected as representatives and servants of We the People, to a state wherein such government has become we the Masters of the people; the People at large no longer exercise inalienable rights under fear of persecution; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
They have endeavored to prevent the population of these States enacting Laws for regulation of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to control illegal migrations hither, and Appropriation of Lands both privately owned, or held in trust by the individual States.
They have obstructed the Administration of Justice, by appointing such Justices and Judges as interpret Laws according to their individual prejudices or political fealty, rather than understanding and commitment to the letter and spirit of the Supreme Law of the Land, making Judges dependent on political persuasion, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
They have erected a multitude of New Offices and unelected, unaccountable bureaucracies, granting authority to such to usurp the power of the Legislature to create, and of the Judiciary to enforce Law, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
They have kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies under the guise of ‘agencies of security’, without the informed consent of the People nor regard for the rights and liberties of a free People.
They have affected to render such paramilitary forces independent of and superior to the Civil power.
They have combined, legislatively and judicially, to subject us to the jurisdiction of laws foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving precedence and substance to such oppressive and repugnant laws as we had rebelled against, and which a majority of citizens had fled.
For arming the agents of the State while illicitly disarming the People.
For establishing a de facto ‘police state’ protecting, and granting such agents rights and privileges denied the general populace, by immunizing them from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For fostering Trade with all parts of the world at the expense of domestic trade and industry.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent, for purposes clearly unauthorized by, and in conflict with, the Constitution.
For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury.
For seizing and transporting citizens beyond Seas to be held without trial for pretended offences.
For abolishing the freedoms guaranteed by such Laws establishing the nation and its government; by abrogation, infringment upon, and reinterpretation of such laws; by requiring the written permission grantable only upon payment of a bribe for the exercise of only such limited rights as remain; establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing absolute power over the joint and several States, and the people thereof.
For overriding our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Form of our Government.
For rendering our Legislatures impotent in matters over which it arbitrarily and capriciously seizes dominion, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
They have effectively abolished local Government by declaring such rights as they deem threatening or unprofitable to be criminal acts against the State.
They have plundered our property, ravaged our cities and towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
They have disbanded Armies and destroyed weapons and munitions necessary for the protection of the Nation and its citizens, threatened our existence by crippling our defenses, and repeatedly failed to react to attacks and acts of aggression, thereby opening us to further and more disastrous attack. exposing the nation to such attack both from without and within.
They have, by constraining our fellow Citizens from exercising their recognized natural rights, been responsible for the slaughter of our most valuable resource: Our children and those who educate them.
They have excited domestic insurrections amongst us, setting citizen against citizen, and prevented justice from being exercised among the populace.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. Such government as has interfered in the commerce, the very lives of its citizenry, in its bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens and storage areas is neither representative of, nor tolerable to, a free people.
We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these United States, solemnly publish and declare: That these States united, and the citizens thereof, are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to a central government which has denied its allegiance to the very principles upon which it was founded, and that such current government be totally dissolved; to be replaced by a central government under the terms and conditions of the Constitution as written both in letter and in spirit; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to rescind their obligations under such Constitution should such government not be established, nor uphold the terms under which established.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. That the repetition be positive rather than chaotic, fruitful rather than destructive, herewith:
The unanimous Declaration of the fifty united STATES of AMERICA,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for a nation to dissolve its governing body, established under the aegis of a written Constitution which they have taken solemn oaths to uphold and protect, and to replace it with a government faithful to the letter and spirit of such Constitution, recognizing the separate and equal powers so clearly delineated, so clearly defined and explained, respecting the rights and liberties of the People which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the dissolution.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these joint and several States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their present Government. The history of the present Legislature, of the present Judiciary, of the present Executive is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
They have refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
They have forbidden Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, superseding such Laws clearly within the dominion of the individual State with federal dictates in clear opposition to the desires of the citizens of such States; and far in excess of the Powers and Authority clearly specified.
They have enacted other Laws for the accommodation of large classes of people, granting such people inordinate Representation in the Legislature, and establishing for them such specious ‘rights’ unavailable to the majority of the citizenry, establishing a tyranny of mediocrity.
They have called together a legislative body the primary concern of which has been its own perpetuation, committed more to the appearance of ‘taking action’ and less to valid accomplishment, extorting from the populace to fund a public treasury to sack for the purpose of self perpetuation, at times unusual and uncomfortable and for those they are alleged to represent, for their own convenience and amusement, for the sole purpose of maintaining their positions.
They have fixated on partisanship and patronage to the detriment of liberty and obligation to the principles under which their positions have been created, repeatedly invading on the rights of the people.
They have refused to cause others to be elected; undermining such processes as established by law for nomination and election of such candidates, whereby the Legislative powers, have been usurped from those elected as representatives and servants of We the People, to a state wherein such government has become we the Masters of the people; the People at large no longer exercise inalienable rights under fear of persecution; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
They have endeavored to prevent the population of these States enacting Laws for regulation of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to control illegal migrations hither, and Appropriation of Lands both privately owned, or held in trust by the individual States.
They have obstructed the Administration of Justice, by appointing such Justices and Judges as interpret Laws according to their individual prejudices or political fealty, rather than understanding and commitment to the letter and spirit of the Supreme Law of the Land, making Judges dependent on political persuasion, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
They have erected a multitude of New Offices and unelected, unaccountable bureaucracies, granting authority to such to usurp the power of the Legislature to create, and of the Judiciary to enforce Law, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
They have kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies under the guise of ‘agencies of security’, without the informed consent of the People nor regard for the rights and liberties of a free People.
They have affected to render such paramilitary forces independent of and superior to the Civil power.
They have combined, legislatively and judicially, to subject us to the jurisdiction of laws foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving precedence and substance to such oppressive and repugnant laws as we had rebelled against, and which a majority of citizens had fled.
For arming the agents of the State while illicitly disarming the People.
For establishing a de facto ‘police state’ protecting, and granting such agents rights and privileges denied the general populace, by immunizing them from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For fostering Trade with all parts of the world at the expense of domestic trade and industry.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent, for purposes clearly unauthorized by, and in conflict with, the Constitution.
For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury.
For seizing and transporting citizens beyond Seas to be held without trial for pretended offences.
For abolishing the freedoms guaranteed by such Laws establishing the nation and its government; by abrogation, infringment upon, and reinterpretation of such laws; by requiring the written permission grantable only upon payment of a bribe for the exercise of only such limited rights as remain; establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing absolute power over the joint and several States, and the people thereof.
For overriding our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Form of our Government.
For rendering our Legislatures impotent in matters over which it arbitrarily and capriciously seizes dominion, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
They have effectively abolished local Government by declaring such rights as they deem threatening or unprofitable to be criminal acts against the State.
They have plundered our property, ravaged our cities and towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
They have disbanded Armies and destroyed weapons and munitions necessary for the protection of the Nation and its citizens, threatened our existence by crippling our defenses, and repeatedly failed to react to attacks and acts of aggression, thereby opening us to further and more disastrous attack. exposing the nation to such attack both from without and within.
They have, by constraining our fellow Citizens from exercising their recognized natural rights, been responsible for the slaughter of our most valuable resource: Our children and those who educate them.
They have excited domestic insurrections amongst us, setting citizen against citizen, and prevented justice from being exercised among the populace.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. Such government as has interfered in the commerce, the very lives of its citizenry, in its bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens and storage areas is neither representative of, nor tolerable to, a free people.
We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these United States, solemnly publish and declare: That these States united, and the citizens thereof, are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to a central government which has denied its allegiance to the very principles upon which it was founded, and that such current government be totally dissolved; to be replaced by a central government under the terms and conditions of the Constitution as written both in letter and in spirit; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to rescind their obligations under such Constitution should such government not be established, nor uphold the terms under which established.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
24 July 2008
Depends On How You Define 'Victory'
Received the August "America's First Freedom" magazine today, the cover emblazoned "Justice Antonin Scalia and the U.S. Supreme Court deliver a resounding blow for freedom by striking down the D.C. gun ban." Kind of made me wonder if I was living in an alternate universe: Four Justices on the highest court in the land either have not read the Constitution, or despite years of 'legal education', understood it. The so-called 'resounding blow for freedom' was hardly more than a love tap, any force it may have otherwise possessed gutted by the ill-advised 'reasonable regulation' caveat - most likely to entice Justice Windsock to sign on without appearing to take a 'principled stand' (or, in the case of the dissenters, an unprincipled one).
Perhaps physical distance sharpens perspective, but from the vantage point of the semi-free State of Arizona, I see no difference between the 'new emergency regulations' since the alleged 'victory' and those precipitating the initial lawsuit. In point of fact, the deceptively rights-friendly language of the decision is more favorable to the gun grabbers than to the pro-rights faction: Yes, the Court did narrowly concede that the right to keep and bear arms is an 'individual' right, a conclusion obvious to any third-grader possessed of a room-temperature IQ, but it also allows for 'reasonable' restriction and regulation. I doubt my definition of 'reasonable', or Tom Paine's, or even Sandy Froman's, would be found in the same dictionary as Upchuck Schumer's, or Barack Hussein's, or Sarah Brady's.
Not to belabor the painfully obvious, but when 'control' of a right is seized by government, to grant, deny or regulate at whim, it has by definition become reduced to the status of 'privilege'. Further not belaboring the excruciatingly obvious, the process of subverting the Constitution has a name: Treason. Those who would, despite the hypocrisy inherent in their swearing an oath to uphold it, violate the letter and the spirit of that Constitution, by legislation or judicial fiat, merit impeachment for such crime. Of course, in our 'tolerant, politically correct' era, that's as likely as Je$$e Ja¢k$on and Al $harpton campaigning for Ron Paul and against affirmative discrimination.
There is, of course, another possibility: In every election this November there is a choice. Not all of them are as clear-cut as we might like, not all of them pit a clearly pro-rights candidate against a nanny-state collectivist, but someone is going to win each and every one of those elections. It was once understood that with every liberty comes a concomitant responsibility. As (still semi-)free individuals, that responsibility includes finding (or becoming) candidates who will 'represent' you in the cause of maintaining that liberty. It was once understood that our elected representatives are just that: Our agents, our 'hired help'. They work for us - we hire them, we can fire them...but it requires every one of us to put down the remote, the game controller, the golf club and get to the polls. You fail to vote, you have forfeited your right to complain - and I do not deserve the government the lowest common denominator wants.
Perhaps physical distance sharpens perspective, but from the vantage point of the semi-free State of Arizona, I see no difference between the 'new emergency regulations' since the alleged 'victory' and those precipitating the initial lawsuit. In point of fact, the deceptively rights-friendly language of the decision is more favorable to the gun grabbers than to the pro-rights faction: Yes, the Court did narrowly concede that the right to keep and bear arms is an 'individual' right, a conclusion obvious to any third-grader possessed of a room-temperature IQ, but it also allows for 'reasonable' restriction and regulation. I doubt my definition of 'reasonable', or Tom Paine's, or even Sandy Froman's, would be found in the same dictionary as Upchuck Schumer's, or Barack Hussein's, or Sarah Brady's.
Not to belabor the painfully obvious, but when 'control' of a right is seized by government, to grant, deny or regulate at whim, it has by definition become reduced to the status of 'privilege'. Further not belaboring the excruciatingly obvious, the process of subverting the Constitution has a name: Treason. Those who would, despite the hypocrisy inherent in their swearing an oath to uphold it, violate the letter and the spirit of that Constitution, by legislation or judicial fiat, merit impeachment for such crime. Of course, in our 'tolerant, politically correct' era, that's as likely as Je$$e Ja¢k$on and Al $harpton campaigning for Ron Paul and against affirmative discrimination.
There is, of course, another possibility: In every election this November there is a choice. Not all of them are as clear-cut as we might like, not all of them pit a clearly pro-rights candidate against a nanny-state collectivist, but someone is going to win each and every one of those elections. It was once understood that with every liberty comes a concomitant responsibility. As (still semi-)free individuals, that responsibility includes finding (or becoming) candidates who will 'represent' you in the cause of maintaining that liberty. It was once understood that our elected representatives are just that: Our agents, our 'hired help'. They work for us - we hire them, we can fire them...but it requires every one of us to put down the remote, the game controller, the golf club and get to the polls. You fail to vote, you have forfeited your right to complain - and I do not deserve the government the lowest common denominator wants.
18 June 2008
Another Education Rant
Once upon a time, in a land of elsewhen, people went to school and learned to speak, write and spell English – even diagramming sentences, learning the difference between verbs and adverbs, nouns and adjectives, transitive and intransitive verbs. We learned simple arithmetic and eventually mathematics, the basics of logical reasoning, and studied the history of the world, and the nation – warts and all. We learned that words have meanings and actions have consequences, that we were responsible for what we did or said, and that world-changing ideas have a pedigree separate and distinct from their authors, and that most ‘revolutionary’ concepts come about because their authors are standing on the shoulders of geniuses. And that a major percentage of those geniuses are ‘dead white European males’. And if you didn’t learn enough of everything taught during the course of your school year, you got the opportunity to repeat it.
Those of us who remember the country we once had feel an obligation - a 'higher calling', if you will - to do what we can to maintain or reinstate those standards and values - even if only in an attempt to stave off what appears inevitable.
Some of us still believe in that flavor of education. Given the opportunity, even in the face of teachers unions and school boards – and parents who think it’s more important that their precious little ones ‘feel good about themselves’ than be capable of anything more advanced than flipping greaseburgers at the local junk food depot – arrayed against us, despite the feeling that we're merely individuals shoveling shit against the tide, we believe a ‘real’ education is worth fighting for. We need scientists and engineers, leaders who can communicate their thoughts and concepts, elected officials who can read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and understand the concepts, the history, the intent of the Founding Fathers who framed them. We need a nation of educated citizens to hold those we choose to trust with our laws and our liberty accountable, not a continent-wide hive of drones subservient to whichever queen happens to win a popularity contest: American citizens, not the American idle.
It’s a war worth waging, a battle for the minds – and soul – of the nation. At the risk of being labeled a ‘romantic’, it's salmost like the movies of the Revolution or the Civil War: As armies marched at each other, into a hail of shot and shell, whenever the flag bearer was hit, someone always sprang to catch the flag before it hit the ground, and continued to move it forward. It wasn't a position with a great life expectancy, but some things had a significance far beyond their reality. Reclaiming the education system from the hands of the indoctrination establishment has both significance and painful reality.
Those of us who remember the country we once had feel an obligation - a 'higher calling', if you will - to do what we can to maintain or reinstate those standards and values - even if only in an attempt to stave off what appears inevitable.
Some of us still believe in that flavor of education. Given the opportunity, even in the face of teachers unions and school boards – and parents who think it’s more important that their precious little ones ‘feel good about themselves’ than be capable of anything more advanced than flipping greaseburgers at the local junk food depot – arrayed against us, despite the feeling that we're merely individuals shoveling shit against the tide, we believe a ‘real’ education is worth fighting for. We need scientists and engineers, leaders who can communicate their thoughts and concepts, elected officials who can read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and understand the concepts, the history, the intent of the Founding Fathers who framed them. We need a nation of educated citizens to hold those we choose to trust with our laws and our liberty accountable, not a continent-wide hive of drones subservient to whichever queen happens to win a popularity contest: American citizens, not the American idle.
It’s a war worth waging, a battle for the minds – and soul – of the nation. At the risk of being labeled a ‘romantic’, it's salmost like the movies of the Revolution or the Civil War: As armies marched at each other, into a hail of shot and shell, whenever the flag bearer was hit, someone always sprang to catch the flag before it hit the ground, and continued to move it forward. It wasn't a position with a great life expectancy, but some things had a significance far beyond their reality. Reclaiming the education system from the hands of the indoctrination establishment has both significance and painful reality.
13 May 2008
"Not Yours To Give"
Sometimes, 'the obvious' isn't, and sometimes what has been written over a century ago just cannot be 'improved on'. On the 'authority' of Congress to 'appropriate' [i]your[/i] money:
"Not Yours To Give"
Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee
One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.
We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---
"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."
"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.
"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'
"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'
"'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?
"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.
What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.
If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'
"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'
"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'
"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'
"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'
"If I don't, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. 'This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.
"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."
"'My name is Bunce.'
"'Not Horatio Bunce?'
"'Yes
"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."
"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
"He came up to the stand and said:
"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'
"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
(Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.)
"Not Yours To Give"
Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee
One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.
We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---
"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."
"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.
"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'
"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'
"'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?
"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.
What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.
If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'
"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'
"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'
"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'
"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'
"If I don't, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. 'This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.
"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."
"'My name is Bunce.'
"'Not Horatio Bunce?'
"'Yes
"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."
"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
"He came up to the stand and said:
"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'
"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
(Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.)
12 April 2008
A small (but to-be-continued) rant on the perversion of the language
Get your damned hands off of my language!
The English language is composed of words, and words have meanings! On this side of Lewis Carroll's Looking Glass, the meanings do not
change to what one wants them to mean for only as long as one chooses them to mean that.
Take 'gun control': What it means is the ability to put all of your rounds into one jagged hole. The nonsensical victim disarmament ordinances ineptly yclept 'gun control' aren't about 'guns', they're about control. If the problem they were allegedly intended to solve is one of criminal action, then they would be 'criminal control' laws - and enacted as such - and would impact the criminal population - possibly even 'control' it - not the overwhelming majority of honest citizenry turned into 'criminals' by the stroke of a pen.
Every dictionary I own defines 'gay' as 'happy, carefree, joyous', or some similar verbiage. It has nothing to do with non-hetrosexual behavior, and has never needed to be 'expanded' to cover such: There are already perfectly adequate and more honest descriptives for them. Unless the practitioners of those behaviors are ashamed of them, why corrupt a valid word with 'meanings' it was never intended to cover? What one does in the privacy of his/her/its own home is nobody's 'business' but the practitoner's - I have no interest in interfering with your sex life, grant my language the same respect.
And what, precisely, is a 'baby mama' or 'baby daddy'? Babies having babies - a clear and obvious indication of the disintigration of our society (but that's another rant) - are commonplace, and were the term descriptive - as it justifiably might be - of an individual barely experiencing puberty carrying a miniature replicant, it would be - linguistically - acceptable. As illiterate shorthand for 'the mother/father of my child', it is not.
And 'texting' is not English. It may be adequate for the undereducated victims of the education establishment to communicate electronically, or as notational shorthand, but it is not a 'language', and certainly not that of Locke, Shakespeare,
Hobbes - hell, it's not even the language of Tom Clancy. One of the beauties of English words is
that they contain vowels - 'razr' not a word, and the real word it's pronounced as already exists, with a current and adequate meaning - and changing the vowels in an English word can completely alter the meaning. Omitting them produces mere gibberish.
More to come.
The English language is composed of words, and words have meanings! On this side of Lewis Carroll's Looking Glass, the meanings do not
change to what one wants them to mean for only as long as one chooses them to mean that.
Take 'gun control': What it means is the ability to put all of your rounds into one jagged hole. The nonsensical victim disarmament ordinances ineptly yclept 'gun control' aren't about 'guns', they're about control. If the problem they were allegedly intended to solve is one of criminal action, then they would be 'criminal control' laws - and enacted as such - and would impact the criminal population - possibly even 'control' it - not the overwhelming majority of honest citizenry turned into 'criminals' by the stroke of a pen.
Every dictionary I own defines 'gay' as 'happy, carefree, joyous', or some similar verbiage. It has nothing to do with non-hetrosexual behavior, and has never needed to be 'expanded' to cover such: There are already perfectly adequate and more honest descriptives for them. Unless the practitioners of those behaviors are ashamed of them, why corrupt a valid word with 'meanings' it was never intended to cover? What one does in the privacy of his/her/its own home is nobody's 'business' but the practitoner's - I have no interest in interfering with your sex life, grant my language the same respect.
And what, precisely, is a 'baby mama' or 'baby daddy'? Babies having babies - a clear and obvious indication of the disintigration of our society (but that's another rant) - are commonplace, and were the term descriptive - as it justifiably might be - of an individual barely experiencing puberty carrying a miniature replicant, it would be - linguistically - acceptable. As illiterate shorthand for 'the mother/father of my child', it is not.
And 'texting' is not English. It may be adequate for the undereducated victims of the education establishment to communicate electronically, or as notational shorthand, but it is not a 'language', and certainly not that of Locke, Shakespeare,
Hobbes - hell, it's not even the language of Tom Clancy. One of the beauties of English words is
that they contain vowels - 'razr' not a word, and the real word it's pronounced as already exists, with a current and adequate meaning - and changing the vowels in an English word can completely alter the meaning. Omitting them produces mere gibberish.
More to come.
07 April 2008
"Principles" My @$$!
"Principles" are the last resort of the charlatan.
You cannot justify boycotting the political process 'from the ground up' - refusing to take part at the precinct level, detaching yourself from participation in the district and county decisions on party leadership, ignoring the dialogue on state leadership, bypassing those 'local, grassroots' conventions, demurring on representation, officer and candidate selection - and refuse to vote for the 'lousy' candidates 'they' selected 'on principle'. You cannot throw away your vote on a write-in for 'your' candidate or Mickey Mouse - or on a 'third (or fourth, or seventh) party' candidate - effectively casting one uncanceled one for the worst of the lot - and scream 'principles'. You cannot hold 'them' culpable for selecting a 'bad' candidate when you are just as culpable, by your lack of interest and participation for that choice, and sit home on Election Day 'on principle'.
If you indeed possessed those 'principles' you lay claim to at this late date, if you had even a reasonable comprehension of what it means to be 'principled', you would have acted on them. If enough of you had, at least one major party might - might - have rediscovered its principles; perhaps they may have nominated a 'principled' candidate.
Refusing to vote for a candidate your failure to exercise your so-called 'principles' stuck us with is not a statement of 'principle', it is an exercise in irresponsibility.
You cannot justify boycotting the political process 'from the ground up' - refusing to take part at the precinct level, detaching yourself from participation in the district and county decisions on party leadership, ignoring the dialogue on state leadership, bypassing those 'local, grassroots' conventions, demurring on representation, officer and candidate selection - and refuse to vote for the 'lousy' candidates 'they' selected 'on principle'. You cannot throw away your vote on a write-in for 'your' candidate or Mickey Mouse - or on a 'third (or fourth, or seventh) party' candidate - effectively casting one uncanceled one for the worst of the lot - and scream 'principles'. You cannot hold 'them' culpable for selecting a 'bad' candidate when you are just as culpable, by your lack of interest and participation for that choice, and sit home on Election Day 'on principle'.
If you indeed possessed those 'principles' you lay claim to at this late date, if you had even a reasonable comprehension of what it means to be 'principled', you would have acted on them. If enough of you had, at least one major party might - might - have rediscovered its principles; perhaps they may have nominated a 'principled' candidate.
Refusing to vote for a candidate your failure to exercise your so-called 'principles' stuck us with is not a statement of 'principle', it is an exercise in irresponsibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)