THE "RIGHT" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

There has been much discussion over our Constitutional guarantee, as explained in the Second Amendment, of the "right to keep and bear arms". The divergence of understanding of this right is not one of language, but rather one of reader intent. In our Constitutional Republic, unlimited power is not automatically bestowed upon the government to cavalierly change those first ten amendments - also known as "The Bill of Rights". According to the Constitution, which at least for the time being is - ostensibly - the supreme law of the land, our government gets its power from the consent of the people! And, how do we exercise that "consent"? By way of elected "representatives". These "representatives", for more than a century and a half, have represented their own best interests... which are determined by a minuscule (but wealthy, influential, and therefore powerful) portion of their constituency. Can we correct this gross deviation from the intent of our Constitution? Idealistic desires aside, my answer is probably not.

Corruption is self-propagating, and corruption is rampant within our government. Not just in the present administration, but most likely in all administrations since our founding. In the beginning it may have been just a few minor officials who were corrupt, but corruption spread like a cancer to all levels. Today, our elected officials are simply better at concealing their corruption than were their predecessors and foreign counterparts. They are like rodents, in that for every one that is exposed for corruption, there are ten others that haven't yet been discovered. There are few persons of true "honor" left in the world of politics. Why would I say such a thing? Because in today's world it takes many millions of dollars to mount an election campaign. and where do politicians get that money? For the most part from donors. Oh, sure, you donated - but your ten, twenty or even one thousand dollar donation is insignificant. If you are lucky, you will get a letter of thanks from the campaign headquarters, complete with an electronic signature from the candidate. "Every man has his price", is a well-known quote from Robert Bolt, author of "A Man For All Seasons", referring to Thomas Cromwell's corruption in the service of his King. Cromwell's price - power - was met by the King, and to fail the King would result in the removal of Cromwell's power... and his head. The less obvious, underlying tenet in that quote was a reflection of Sir Thomas More's philosophy: "The integrity of oneself should be one's major goal. Without it, life is really not worth living. Death is unpleasant, but losing that part of oneself that guides our actions on the path that we deem to be correct would be unbearable." A philosophy in which principles cost Sir Thomas his own head. Politics is ruled by the fear of possible loss... loss of stature, loss of reputation, loss of position, loss of power, loss of money, and in extreme cases, the possibility of loss of life, etc. But, I digress...

The First Amendment requires that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It establishes basic individual freedoms concerning religious belief (or non-belief), the freedom to speak against those things we determine to be inimical (even within our government) to our Constitutional freedoms, it protects the left-wing media as well as the minority right-wing media, and our right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (such as forcing Obamacare upon us, and the so-called "Patriot Act", which identifies military veterans as "potential terrorists", etc.). The Second Amendment received the prestigious second spot because it insures the citizens right to protect all the other rights and freedoms established by our Constitution. A citizenry, disarmed, are called subjects. They cannot protect themselves, or their countrymen, from the whims of those who would rule rather than govern. It was said in "Cato's Letters" (England, early 1720s) that "Power is like fire. It warms, scorches or destroys, according as it is watched, provoked or increased." Power, when not watched and controlled, is also all-consuming. The more power an individual (or government) has, the more they want.

A government that is unanswerable to its people is a dictatorship. Ours has not yet reached that stage of development. They are still technically answerable to the people... they just choose to ignore our inquiries and our expressed desires! Why? Because Big Brother knows better what is right, fair and just for its people, and they will determine what rights and freedoms are appropriate for those of us with less intelligence than they, and relatively little power to change things. We have three choices: vote for a different, but no less corrupt replacement, at the ballot box; reinstate the same corrupt individual at the ballot box; or, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." As unpalatable as the third option may be to Americans, is it not better than the loss of our Constitution, our freedoms, and the consequent subjugation and enslavement of a free people? (The downside to a second American Revolution would be that all those who envy and despise us [i.e. - the 191 "United Nations"] would seize such a discordant opportunity to conquer, subjugate and enslave the survivors of such an action, and then divide the spoils among themselves.)

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS THE FOUNDATION OF "HOMELAND SECURITY"! Without it, we have none. The current administration (Obama, Clinton, Holder, et al) has designs upon dismantling as much of the Constitution as meets their desires to rule. Should they be successful in infringing upon our Second Amendment rights, all the other rights will fall like standing dominoes.

But, that's just the way I see things. Perhaps my world view is naive... idealistic... perhaps it is "radical"... or perhaps it is realistic. No matter... it is what it is. And, at least for the time being, my world view is protected under the First Amendment, which is protected by the Second Amendment. I do not encourage a second American Revolution, but I do see it as a possibility when individual freedoms are infringed upon or removed by any government.

INSURRECTION 101 - HOW TO PROVOKE AN INSURRECTION

Insurrection has been defined as:
"The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.", and as synonymous with "rebellion", which is defined thus:
"rebellion: a rebellion against the government or rulers of a country, often involving armed conflict."

Insurrection has been described as not only necessary, but as a virtual obligation - "When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensible of duties." -- Marquis de Lafayette
(For those of you who may not remember the finer details of our early-American history, the Marquis de Lafayette was a French noble who served in the Continental Army, as a Major General, during the American Revolution, 1777-1779 .)

"The late rebellion in Massachusetts has given more alarm than I think it should have done. Calculate that one rebellion in thirteen states in the course of eleven years, is but one for each state in a century and a half. No country should be so long without one. Nor will any degree of power in the hands of government prevent insurrections." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

How did we reach a point in these United States, 145 years after the "Civil War", that the word insurrection would be mentioned in any sentence relating to our internal affairs? The Civil War as also known as the War Between The States, which is more accurate, inasmuch as there is no record of any of the combatants requesting permission from an opponent to shoot at him, or apologizing after the fact for his termination. The war wasn't the least bit "civil".

Perhaps the Marquis de Lafayette and Jefferson were correct. The will of a free people can only be ignored by their elected government for so long, before there are grumblings of anger and resentment against that government. But, as they say, "talk is cheap" (unless it's a 60 second Super Bowl commercial on TV). Actually, according to our Constitution, talk costs nothing as it falls under the First Amendment's "freedom of speech". Of course we know that it means we are free to say that which is on our mind, but nobody has any obligation to provide us with a free venue for presenting those thoughts. But, I digress...

Insurrection could be very loosely interpreted as any expressed disagreement with the government or other ruling body. However, the word "insurrection" has historically been used to describe an armed and violent expression of such disagreement. Are we on the verge of such an expression? I still slightly doubt that we are. Are the dangerous TEA Party participants ready to usurp authority of their government? The question itself is ludicrous. The only acts of violence involving TEA Parties have been brought to the party by outside influences - such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) egging vehicles at the recent Searchlight, NV TEA Party. SEIU members have also been filmed invading the "personal space" (the space between colleagues during a normal conversation, is usually about 20 to 36 inches. If the person is not well known to us,we will stand from 2 to 4 feet away during a conversation.) of others and "getting in their face" in an attempt to provoke a physical reaction. So far these tactics have been unsuccessful, but... sooner or later the liberal, government-sponsored union thugs will get just what they want from somebody. And when they do, it will be plastered all over the media for days! Who are the people threatening violence and name-calling in Arizona over their new immigration law? Is it the conservative right (who are supporting their Governor's efforts to enhance their safety) or the liberal socialist left (who believe that anybody should be allowed into our country at any time without any documentation)? And which side has the President's support? Those who would like to see the federal government live up to it's Constitutional obligation to secure our borders, or those would would like "open borders" - which is the equivalent of NO BORDERS at all?

Here's the bottom line - governments provoke an insurrection by thumbing their nose at the expressed will of the people, and/or instigating confrontations between government agents (official registered agents, like law enforcement - or unofficial government sponsored thugs, like the SEIU) and normally non-confrontational groups (like the TEA Party participants).

The worst abuse of government power thus far within our borders was undoubtedly the use of the United States Army against the "Bonus Army". In 1924, a grateful Congress voted to give a bonus to World War I veterans - $1.25 for each day served overseas, $1.00 for each day served in the States. The catch was that payment would not be made until 1945 (the obvious hope being that many of those veterans would die before they could receive that which they had been promised). However, by 1932 the nation had slipped into the dark days of the Depression and the unemployed veterans wanted their money immediately.

The Bonus Army was composed of 10,000-15,000 American veterans of World War 1, most of whom were conscripted (drafted) into service. Their cause during the summer of 1932 was to pressure the government into living up to its promise of "adjusted compensation" for their lost earnings during their service. These men did nothing violent - they were simply an embarrassment to the government. Insurrection at a more controlled level. But violence was brought upon them by the Hoover administration (see accompanying video).

The big surprise for me was the name of the Army officer who led the cavalry charges into those veterans... Major George S. Patton Jr. The lesson to be learned from this encounter is that our government is not above using our military to control civilian dissent.

An insurrection is provoked in the same manner as a barroom brawl. Somebody pushes somebody else, either physically or emotionally, until the "pushee" responds in some manner. The response could be verbal: "You #$@!&**#!", but it provides the pusher with enough justification to retaliate and not immediately be seen as the jerk he is by onlookers. A response of physical force ameliorates the pushers culpability even further: "He swung first, so he deserved to be crippled when I hit him with that bar stool!"

In an ideological insurrection it becomes more difficult to determine which party is the provocateur. To my way of thinking though, the responsibility should always lay upon the shoulders of the provocateur. The provocateur is the one doing the "baiting"... similar in most respects to what the law now refers to as "entrapment" by law enforcement personnel. If you don't call a black man by the feared and awesome "N" word, he probably won't beat the hell out of you with the first handy object he finds. And if you do use the feared and awesome "N" word, when he does beat the hell out of you, he - and most witnesses to the event - will feel he was completely justified in doing so. (Whatever happened to the legal concept of "sticks and stones"?)

So, if you are ever faced with legitimate opposition, and you feel motivated to squelch that opposition:
First - make sure you label the aggrieved party(ies) as "right-wing nuts", "loonies", "Nazis" and/or "racists". That makes you the "good guy"... and you get to wear the white hat. Your opponents immediately get to wear the fools cap and the idiot mittens.
Second - insure that your mirrors are all polished to a high luster and that your smoke machines are fully loaded.
Justify, justify, justify - No matter how idiotic your position might be, justify it! There are copious numbers of dullards in the world who will believe you if you are charismatic! (Almost three decades ago an unusual series of events led to the deaths of more than 900 people, led by the Rev. Jim Jones of "Jonestown" infamy, in the middle of a South American jungle. After relocating to California in 1965, the church continued to grow in membership and began advocating their left-wing political ideals more actively. In November 1978, California Congressman Leo Ryan arrived in Guyana to survey Jonestown and interview its inhabitants. After reportedly having his life threatened by a Temple member during the first day of his visit, Ryan decided to cut his trip short and return to the U.S. with some Jonestown residents who wished to leave. As they boarded their plane, a group of Jones's guards opened fire on them, killing Ryan and four others. Jones told his followers that Ryan's murder would make it impossible for their commune to continue functioning. Rather than return to the United States, the People's Temple would preserve their church by making the ultimate sacrifice: their own lives. Jones's 912 followers were given a deadly concoction of a purple drink mixed with cyanide, sedatives, and tranquilizers. Jones apparently shot himself in the head.)

As you can see, even a lunatic can generate charisma. Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the KKK), George Lincoln Rockwell (founder of the American Nazi Party).. the list goes on and on. Charismatic leadership is nothing more than "a rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm." They do not have to be honorable, well-intentioned, or even particularly intelligent people to be charismatic. They can however, focus the wills of like-minded individuals on the accomplishment of a single goal... for example national health care, or government control over critical industries such as manufacturing and finance... or the elimination of Jews from the face of the Earth.

Charisma is no substitute for honor, but "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King."

OPEN YOUR EYES AMERICA!

TRANSPARENCY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS - One Party Involvement Is NOT Bi-Partisan

When the final vote is taken on the unwanted Obamacare bill, it will be behind closed doors and Republicans will be excluded from the process. It seems to me that excluding either party from a vote usurps our "representation"... such as it is.

At the beginning of the first American Revolution it was proclaimed that "Taxation without representation is tyranny!" Inasmuch as Obamacare will be funded with our tax dollars, and subsequent increases therein, it logically follows that eliminating the Republican party from the process is tyranny! A large percentage of the population is being denied their representation on a tax-dependent issue. If, by design, we do not have full and complete representation, during the process of debate over a bill that will increase our taxes if passed, then we are faced with an act of tyranny.
Or... is there something I don't understand about how a unilateral, partisan government action - one that forces unwanted additional taxes upon its people to support programs which the majority of those people do not want - escapes the definition of tyranny?

DEMAND FULL AND COMPLETE REPRESENTATION DURING THE FINAL VOTE ON OBAMACARE!

Law Enforcement Warned Again About Right-Wing "Domestic Terrorists"

Remember a few months ago, when the Department of Homeland Security issued its now infamous report "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" warning that returning veterans and people in a long list of other categories were potential terrorists?

It warned of potential terrorism threats from those who:

Oppose abortion (and why should we support abortion on demand?)

Are returning veterans (how many acts of domestic terrorism have they committed?)

Oppose same-sex marriage (as has more than 2,000 years of worldwide tradition)

Oppose restrictions on firearms (unreasonable restrictions must be opposed)

Oppose lax immigration laws (rigid enforcement of existing immigration laws would be good)

Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs (the Chief Domestic Terrorist's policies are socialistic, and therefore should be opposed)

Oppose continuation of free trade agreements (how are we benefiting from those agreements?)

Are suspect of foreign regimes (well, DUH! Many foreign regimes wish the USA harm in some fashion - economic, political or physical. Envy and jealousy come in many forms.)

Fear Communist regimes (again... DUH! We have spent decades defending against the deleterious effects of communism! We do not need communism in our government.)

Oppose a "one world" government (Give me ten objective, non-socialistic reasons why we should accept a "one world government". Sounds extremely Orwellian to me!

Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world (and we should be joyful about that?)

Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India, and others (with 15 million unemployed workers in this country - who have been forced to transition from taxpayer to tax burden - why shouldn't we be upset with the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to foreign countries? Perhaps if we outsourced the jobs of the House of Representatives and Senate the legislative branch of our government might see the situation with the same seriousness that John Q. Public sees it!)

The list seems to include anyone whose memories of a better America are in direct conflict with the Chief Domestic Terrorist's vision of a "better America". Their definitions of what constitutes a "better America" could not be further apart, nor could they be less reconcilable.

Only the new warning, not issued by the DHS, was delivered recently to police officers, sheriffs and other law enforcement personnel across the country, and is now lumping those dedicated to the constitutional principles on which the nation was founded together with crazed killers.

The fall 2009 "Intelligence Report" was issued recently by the Southern Poverty Law Center - a politically-based, radical left-wing organization - where officials stated it was published specifically for and delivered to law enforcement personnel across the nation. The SPLC is a NGO (Non-Governmental Organization), which has no more legitimate standing than any individual citizen to issue such a document warning law enforcement agencies about anything! But, the SPLC does fear the conservative silent majority... as do all left-wing organizations and movements. Their only hope for success in the destruction of the Republic is to demonize conservative thought - which is understandable coming from those who support the concept of "Thought Police".

Conservative actor Chuck Norris addressed the issue in a discussion of the 9/12 rally in Washington, where hundreds of thousands of people assembled to protest uncontrolled spending by government and its interference in individual lives.

"On Sept. 12, 2002, we sought to protect our nation against terrorists from without. Beginning on Sept. 12, 2009, we are seeking to protect our nation against enemies of our republic from within. Many of us are protesting the present political direction of Washington. Outrageous borrowing, excessive bailouts, massive spending, speedball stimulus plans … swings toward socialism are just a few of things that were protested that day. Of course, economics is far from America's only problem, as large as it appears to loom," Norris wrote.

"I want to emphasize: this revolutionary movement is not solely an independent, Republican or Democrat fight. It represents patriots fed up against modernists who seek to overturn almost every principle and tenet laid down by our country's founders at the inception of our republic. From the East Coast to the 'Left Coast,' America seems to be moving further and further from its founders' vision and government," he said.

"Conservative" and "actor" are terms that I usually find to be mutually exclusive, so Chuck stands within a relatively small circle within a very large group of otherwise radical, left-wing socialists. For that reason, and that reason alone, I generally take little note of anything emanating from the mouths of socialistic Hollywood (who, by the way, are the major beneficiaries of our capitalistic system as it now exists! Where, other than in a free-market, capitalist society could the likes of Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand and George Clooney demand - and get - millions of dollars for a few weeks of "work"?) Norris, on the other hand, has a good grasp of what our Constitution means to the freedoms we all enjoy - including those who wish so desperately to change it!

I can barely hear the fife and drums, and see the flag bearer of the "Spirit of '76"... they are still far in the distance. But, their cadence is steady and their march moves indefatigably forward. They call out to those who would resist being ruled by despots, rather than properly governed by those who would be elected as true representatives of "We the People". Their cry is "Join us and save the Republic!"... and many - who heretofore went unnoticed - will!

Although I cannot find any specific number for retired military and ex-military personnel, I feel safe in estimating their numbers to be several millions. Several millions who took the following "Oath of Office":
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Nowhere in that oath is an expiration date, and those who took the oath are honor-bound to it. "Support and defend the Constitution" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" makes no exceptions for a government gone astray. The oath is to "support and defend the Constitution,"... not the President, Congress, Judiciary or government-at-large! It is the Constitution which guarantees us our God-given rights and freedoms, NOT the government.

Keep your eyes and ears open for the arrival of the "Spirit of '76" in your city. They already made their presence peacefully known in Washington D.C. on September 12th, 2009. The question now is - "Did our present misdirected government even take notice?"

I do not possess the gift of prophecy, but I do possess the power of observation. That which I have recently been observing is very disturbing, and I am resolved that when the time for observation is supplanted by the call to action, others will find it even more disturbing.