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.

TEA Partiers Branded As Anti-Government By Left-Wing, Socialist-Progressive Media

The English language is not that difficult for those of us who are natural-born citizens of the USA. The prefix "anti-" is defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of The English Language as: "one that is opposed". In this particular case it would mean one (group) that is "opposed to government"... and nothing could be further from the truth! That is, of course, because the lefties know nothing about the truth of being an American.

Once again - for those of you who may have missed it originally - the "TEA" in TEA Party stands for Taxed Enough Already. It is not an acronym for Terror, Enmity and Anarchy. The TEA Party participants, overall, are not "anti-government". What they are against is bloated, gargantuan and ever-expanding, intrusive, tax-and-spend-like-there's-no-tomorrow socialist-"progressive" government!
The TEA Party participants, by and large, are Constitutional Traditionalist Conservatives. They believe in a government that serves the people according to the Constitution as it was written and intended. This belief particularly applies to the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which are also known as the "Bill of Rights".
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the citizens from the inherent greed and lust for power of those elected to represent them in the Federal Government. Most state constitutions are closely modeled after - if not carbon copies of - the Constitution of the United States of America. In 1861, seven states, led by South Carolina, seceded (departed) from the United States because the southern states felt the federal government was becoming too strong and dictatorial in telling them how they should live. They then formed the "Confederate States of America". Union soldiers occupying Fort Sumpter at Charleston, SC refused to leave the fort when ordered to do so by the Confederacy, which resulted in the opening shots of the "Civil War". To date, that is the only rift resulting in the separation of the union of states.

The Socialist-Progressives in this country have, in effect, declared war upon the relatively silent, conservative-traditionalist majority. That war is being coordinated by our Congress and higher government officials, financed by billionaire socialist George Soros and other like-minded left wingers, and reported by the liberal media. Thus far it is a war of words... or more specifically, a war of misinformation, commonly known as lies.
The current president of the United States, finds the TEA party movement to be "humorous", rather than an expression of dissatisfaction with the way our government is being run. Those in his left-wing socialist administration have labeled those in the TEA Party as "wing-nuts" and "terrorists". The TEA Party movement has been described in the media as a "violent anti-government" movement, yet there have been no acts of violence from the TEA Party. There have, however, been acts of violence and intimidation conducted against them by the Obama-endorsed SEIU and other radical elements of the left-wing socialist progressive movement.
The intent of those who have aligned themselves against the TEA Party movement, is to undermine (if not eliminate) that irritating Constitution of the United States of America. That seems to be the document that prohibits them from converting our country from a Democratic Republic into a Marxist-socialist-progressive state. A pseudo-Utopian state where the rewards of the labors of all are shared with those who labor not. They will have reduced the status of a world-class technological, financial, economic, military and social super power to that of some third world banana-Republic. Once we are reduced to that condition we (the working class) will be punished for having the audacity to apply ourselves and become successful in our chosen field of endeavor. The fruits of our labors will be collected by way of taxation - direct and hidden - and redistributed to those who did not apply themselves. The politicians will not suffer, nor will the leaders of big business or the union officials. They will be rewarded for their unwavering support in the destruction of our once-great nation.

Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money." She was correct. Who will willingly continue to labor for the support of those who do not? When the majority of the populations quits working will the socialist-progressives create forced-labor camps, as suggested by U.S. Army Regulation 210-35 "Civilian Inmate Labor Program? The regulation specifies "the Army's primary purpose for allowing establishment of prison camps on Army installations is to use the resident nonviolent civilian inmate labor pool to work on the leased portions of the installation." (Camps of this type were quite popular with the German Nazi party during World War II. There were the Soviet gulags and Siberian labor camps for political dissenters into the mid-to-late-20th century, and camps of this type are still popular today in China and North Korea.)

But let's not worry about any of those things. Keep your eyes open for those violent, terrorist-anarchists of the TEA Party movement! They may complain that their Constitution has been usurped by the Luciferian left.

At last count, thirty-three states had re-asserted their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, but none of the Constitutional amendments will mean anything once the Constitution has been undermined, usurped, or otherwise destroyed and re-written in the leftist, socialist-progressive, Marxist manner our current government desires. Perhaps by then thirty-three states will have seceded from the "union"...

"Government of the Wealthy, By the Wealthy, and For the Wealthy"

Recently, I was moved to re-read some of the founding documents of our great Nation, among which were the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in those documents are the wealthy excluded from seeking the various offices of government - nor is government set aside as the exclusive milieu of the wealthy. Abraham Lincoln, during his oft-quoted Gettysburg Address said, "... That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. ..." (At this juncture Bill Clinton may have injected, "It depends on what your definition of 'people' is.") Granted, the wealthy are, by definition, (for the most part) "people".

How did the wealthy become that way? There are several roads leading to the streets of gold:

1. Some achieved wealth by the sweat of their brow, fulfilling "the American dream".
2. Some inherited their wealth, never having done an honest days' work in their life.
3. Some made their fortunes by creating misfortune for others, which qualifies them as either wealthy predators or wealthy carrion eaters ... or both.
4. Some married into wealth - and, possibly, a few even for love. The wealth was just a bonus.
5. Some were just astute businessmen and investors, who availed themselves of every opportunity to increase their portfolio, their holdings, and their market share.

It makes no difference how the wealthy became wealthy, the difference is in perspective. I know that generalizations have a very good chance of being wrong, so I won't use the word "all", or even imply "all", but in general the wealthy tend to have a very different perspective on life, and a totally different set of values, than those of us who have worked for wages all our life. The wealthy drink Dom Perignon, and the "worker bees" see movies with Dom Deluise in them. The wealthy have their huge yachts, and the workers have their seventeen foot bass boats. Dinner out for the wealthy means a trendy high-end restaurant, and for the worker it may be Olive Garden or KFC. The wealthy have their Rolls Royce, and we have our "rolls downhill". Don't misunderstand though - I don't begrudge the wealthy any of their sensory pleasures.

The wealthy seem to live in a parallel universe - a universe of expensive excesses. Should we "redistribute the wealth"? Not on my watch! What's theirs is theirs - as long as it was acquired through legal means. Well, if that's not the point of this post, what is?

The wealthy have bought our government. Over 40% of our Congressmen and Senators are millionaires ... and the rest are very comfortable. Their personal and/or family wealth, and their wealthy connections, PACs, etc., have been buying elections for the past 60 years or more. Others, like the Kennedy's and the Dodd's have turned government into a family business. For me, the question that comes immediately to mind is, "How did they get that much money as servants of the people?" From a job that pays less than $175,000 per annum? And if they are "independently wealthy", they don't need the money, so why not refuse it and really DO a public service?

What happens when people of great wealth are put in a position where they actually make the laws of the country? The same thing that happens when they are permitted by law (which their predecessors created) to vote on their own pay raises - they will create laws that benefit themselves and their associates. It's not exactly an unnatural act! You've probably heard that variaton on the "Golden Rule" - "Those that have the gold, make the rules." Well, here you are - validation and proof-positive of that claim. And then there's "Birds of a feather flock together." Money supports money! People who have either never had to hold a work-a-day job for wages, or who have forgotten what it's like to have done so, are now making the laws by which the rest of us have to abide.

Is it possible to vote them out? Technically it certainly is ... but in a practical sense it can't be done under the present system. We can replace the incumbent, but only with another of the same kind offered by the wealthy leadership of either of the two major political parties. How do we create change? Petition our Congressmen and Senators to change the law? Not a snowballs chance ...

What needs to be done?

1. Reduce Congressional compensation by 50% - making it a reasonable living wage of $87,000 per year for rank and file, Majority and Minority leaders would get $96,700, and the Speaker of the House would receive $111,750 - and cap them all at that level with a fixed 2% COLA adjustment annually.
2. One term only. Eliminate the entrenchment of those whose who would dole out political favors - and NO "Grandfather" clauses!
3. Publicly funded campaigns with a set limit. Eliminate private donations, and demand accurate records be made available to the CBO for review.
5. In other words, make the process of government less attractive to the moneyed interests of our country, and return it to the status of "public service" so that good people, well-intentioned people, people with the best interests of our country in their hearts and minds stand a chance of winning an election.

There would be other necessary adjustments that would have to be made as well - the above is just a jumping off point.

Have you never asked yourself, "Why in the world would people spend $3,000,000 to capture a job that pays $174,000 a year??" Doesn't that raise a flag for you? If Congress is that bad at math, do you want really them deciding what to do with our tax dollars?

If you think there's something wrong with that approach, you're a bigger leftie than Obama. And, if you have a better idea, leave a comment.

Constitutional Erosion In The United States of America

If you have read my previous postings, particularly those of July 8, 2008, you are probably aware that I believe there are some very serious problems in the liberal courts interpretations of our Constitution (the Federal 9th 'Circus' Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California is probably the worst offender). I refer to the rapid degradation of the supposed individual and collective "rights" provided by our Constitution as "Constitutional Erosion". The First Amendment is under constant attack by those who are envious, resentful, or simply hateful toward us for reasons both real and imaginary.

In less than 250 years, we have built a country and culture that has surpassed, in almost every respect, cultures with hundreds - and even thousands - of years head start on us. We are a constant reminder that unbridled creativity, ambition, effort, and ingenuity, coupled with the right of the individual to profit from the fruits of his/her labors, can easily surpass lock-step, sloth, laxness, and 'state owned' industries. Who are these enemies of Democracy? Just pick a continent from the list below.

1. Europe? The government of France has been resentful of the United States ever since we stopped German from becoming their national language in the 1940s. Initially they were overjoyed, until they realized that their only real source of pride during WWII was the French Underground. They also discovered that French General Charles De Gaulle got to lead the victory parade down the Champs Elysees only because of the magnanimity of the United States of America. Italy? They chose to be on the wrong side. Germany? They were the wrong side, but did take 3rd place in the war!
2. Asia? Well, let's see ... China? Seems that from 1898 to 1900 there was a bit of unrest there called the Boxer Rebellion, which was designed to eliminate all western influencein China. U.S. sailors and marines made u a large part of the 2,100 man international force that quelled the rebellion. Japan? Japan gets the 2nd place ribbon for WWII, but has adjusted nicely for the most part.
   
3. Africa? Although not as openly hostile toward the west, most African nations are jealous of what we have accomplished. With well over a thousand years of history behind them, they have chosen to remain living in the dark ages.
4. South America? Generally dictatorships and controlled elections are the order of the day in South American countries. Venezuela is the only South American country that is openly hostile toward the USA at this particular point in time, but given South America's history, that is subject to change at a moments notice ... as is the government of any S.A. country.

About now, you're probably asking yourself, "What does this have to do with the Constitution?" Well, these are just a few of the overwhelming numbers of countries that would love to see the USA come to an ignominious end. However, we have an even greater threat from within than we have from outside our borders. These are the hundreds of thousands of people living inside the USA that believe we deserve be overthrown, and thereby give heart to our external detractors and enemies. Citizens and non-citizens alike, they share a common bond - they are desirous of seeing our way of life destroyed and replaced by socialism, communism, anarchism or almost any 'ism' you can think of rather than the Democratic Republic that it has been. And, most surprisingly, this attitude is rampant among those who have benefited the most from our way of life. They hope to accomplish this not by force of arms, but rather by chipping away at our Constitution, and by using the 'benefits' provided by our own system against us. They have, and will continue to, inundate our court system with ridiculous demands - demands which will be granted in order to show how accepting and understanding we are. Even at the cost of ignoring/manipulating our Constitution to do so!

These are the Constitutional Articles of Amendment most frequently under assault or abuse - (Amendments 1-10 inclusive, constitute the Bill of Rights):
1st - Freedom of religion, speech, the press, and peaceful assembly, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances. (assault/abuse)
2nd - Right to keep and bear arms. (resolved last week by the "Supremes") (assault)
4th - Right to be secure in your person, home, papers and effects, and against unreasonable search and seizure. (abuse)

That's 30% of our Bill of Rights either under constant legal attack, or being abused by representatives of various government agencies. When will we wake up and smell the coffee (or Postum, Pero, Caro, etc.)? When will we demand that our elected 'representatives' begin representing the expressed will of their constituencies? When will we take back our streets and schools from punks?