Wednesday, July 24, 2013

The foolish injustice of calling for "Justice for Trayvon!", after justice has already been served.

I rarely follow criminal trials, because, it seems I know something that most other people seem not to know: I wasn't there.

I wasn't there for the crime and I wasn't there for the trial, therefore I'm not in a position to know, one way or another who did what. THAT is what we have a judicial system for. That's what we have trials for.

If you've been lucky enough to miss out on the relevant details of the matter, or sadly unable to understand them, let's recap, shall we?
  • There was a violent incident, and a person died.
  • Another person was put on trial for that death, and was just found innocent of murder.
  • No one has shown any evidence of tampering with either the evidence or with the jury, and until someone does, that is the end of the matter, justice has been done.
  • If someone would like to react violently or riot over it, then that will be the start of a new matter.
Now if that system is being abused, ignored or maliciously altered, then that's something I might be likely to take an interest in it and I might be able to have some additional knowledge of, and an opinion, to offer on it, but to the best of my knowledge there has been no such evidence brought forward (and no, not liking the verdict, is not evidence of wrong doing). Do you have some evidence? Again, evidence, not opinion of news stories. No? Then sorry, not interested. I'm actually more interested in the Royal's new baby... and I'm not the least bit interested in that.

For those who keep trying to get an opinion out of me on the zimmermartin trial, what I had to say about the matter last year, pretty much goes the same for this year:
"If we had a way of knowing what happened and who was to blame, we’d have no need for a Judicial system.

That is the very foundation of the Western concept of Justice, indeed of society. Clearly these people who are so loudly and violently calling ‘for justice!’, have no interest in Justice, whatsoever."
On the other hand, the Left one of course, if government officials, like an Attorney General or a President for instance, would like to raise some noise about trying the case again in order to get a 'better' result... well... that I do have an opinion upon... but there's really way I could fit that in this post, but in lieu of that long long wind, how about simply reviewing the Fifth Amendment? You don't even need to read the whole paragraph, just this clause will do:
"... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."
Of course, if all those years of college 'education' has made it too difficult to actually think about such a non-PC concept as that, you could always let Justice Joseph Story's commentaries on it get you started:
"§ 1781. Another clause declares, that no person shall be subject, "for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb." This, again, is another great privilege secured by the common law. The meaning of it is, that a party shall not be tried a second time for the same offence, after he has once been convicted, or acquitted of the offence charged, by the verdict of a jury, and judgment has passed thereon for or against him...."
That's not that complicated, is it? Simple enough for even an adjunct law professor to understand, isn't it? And I can't resist adding this next part about the nature of jury trials, especially the bit towards the end,
"§ 1785. The other article, in declaring, that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state or district, wherein the crime shall have been committed, (which district shall be previously ascertained by law,) and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the witnesses against him, does but follow out the established course of the common law in all trials for crimes. The trial is always public; the witnesses are sworn, and give in their testimony (at least in capital cases) in the presence of the accused; the nature and cause of the accusation is accurately laid down in the indictment; and the trial is at once speedy, impartial, and in the district of the offence. Without in any measure impugning the propriety of these provisions, it may be suggested, that there seems to have been an undue solicitude to introduce into the constitution some of the general guards and proceedings of the common law in criminal trials, (truly admirable in themselves) without sufficiently adverting to the consideration, that unless the whole system is incorporated, and especially the law of evidence, a corrupt legislature, or a debased and servile people, may render the whole little more, than a solemn pageantry. If, on the other hand, the people are enlightened, and honest, and zealous in defence of their rights and liberties, it will be impossible to surprise them into a surrender of a single valuable appendage of the trial by jury."
IOW, if you are calling for "Justice for Trayvon!", such as those in this picture Stacy Washington took at the St. Louis rally, now, after a trial has already been held, in which evidence has already been presented and argued and a verdict of "Not Guilty" has been rendered, then please, stop pretending as if Justice is of any interest to you at all. You're simply spewing out words of thoughtless thuggery which someone else put in your mouth. Which is just gross.

And if you do have an interest in preserving your Rights and Liberties, then when you do hear someone talking such non-sense as "Justice for Trayvon!", point out that justice has already been served - a trial has been held and a verdict has been rendered - and ask them to explain themselves. It probably won't take much more than their own explanation of what they said, to show what a foolish thing it was to have said it.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Instant Karma: According to Union leaders and membership, all union leaders and members are racists and fascists.

Just a quick note to prove I'm still alive and share a fun fact. It seems that the Unions are waking up to the facts about Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed & Obamacare. The Wall Street Journal informs us that James P. Hoffa, together with other Union big-wigs, have penned a letter to little miss "Gotta pass it to find out what's in it" Pelosi and Harry 'Pasty Face' Reed (long time Nevadan's will get that), telling them that:
" will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class."
They also note that their political darlings are apparently dishonestly leading them on for their own purposes:
" As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. "
They've even figured out that they won't get to keep their own health care plans if they like them,
"Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans."
, with even a glimmering of a hint that the Free Market may have some benefits for workers, they note that,
"And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies."
Though, in the end, demonstrating that they are themselves simply corrupt thugs demanding their share of the loot, they opine,
"We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions."
Isn't that special?

Of course, most of that is what the Tea Party was trying to explain to them back in 2010.

To which we were subjected to slander and even assault. But, out of respect for the Union brotherhood's tightly reasoned and highly principled responses to the Tea Party when we tried explain the '2+2=4's of the world to them, obviously Hoffa and all Union members, and all Union sympathizers, are clearly all ignorant racists and neo-fascists who just hate America and who especially hate America's working class, it's children and the elderly.

Thank you, that is all.

Thursday, July 04, 2013

Celebrate July 4th Right!

As with last year, I'm in a hurry again, but unlike last year, my lack of time is more due to that damn tornado having left my time out of joint... just can't quite devote the time needed to completing my posts - I almost had one done, but I've got to cave and admit it won't get done in time. Oh well, still though, once again, I'll post my standard for the 4th of July - President Calvin Coolidges' "The Inspiration of the Declaration of Independence", a necessity for cleaning up after Wilson, July 5, 1926, and no doubt it will come in handy for dealing with our current ProRegressive Wilsonian, Barack Obama.

Of The Declaration of Independence as Abe Lincoln once pointed out:
“All honor to Jefferson—to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.”—Abraham Lincoln to H.L. Pierce, April 6, 1859.
Before getting out of the way of the Ideas of the Declaration of Independence and it's self-evident truths (to those who understand the concepts which gave rise to it... see my last few posts if your scratching your head), I'll just point out this line from Lincoln's comment  "...had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times..." which nails it so well. And it is a rebuke and a stumbling block to tyrants - they do so hate the very idea of Individual Rights, of people living Their Own "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...".

Job #1 of the any potential tyranny in America, has always been to replace our Individual Rights, with promises of privileges and benefits.

Job #1 of every American, is to understand the meaning of your Rights, and to hold them as swords in the faces of those who would raise a tyranny over you. Especially in the faces of those who come bearing gifts.

And now it is time again for a few words from our Sponsors:

The Inspiration of the Declaration of Independence - Calvin Coolidge (cleaning up after Wilson, July 5, 1926)

We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. The coming of a new life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond our vision, that only makes it the more wonderful. But how our interest and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the fourth day of July. Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgment of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.

Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human
experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very well seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of experience.

It is not so much then for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.

It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event. The world looks upon them, because of their associations of one hundred and fifty years ago, as it looks upon the Holy Land because of what took place there nineteen hundred years ago. Through use for a righteous purpose they have become sanctified.

It is not here necessary to examine in detail the causes which led to the American Revolution. In their immediate occasion they were largely economic. The colonists objected to the navigation laws which interfered with their trade, they denied the power of Parliament to impose taxes which they were obliged to pay, and they therefore resisted the royal governors and the royal forces which were sent to secure obedience to these laws. But the conviction is inescapable that a new civilization had come, a new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more advanced and more developed in its regard for the rights of the individual than that which characterized the Old World. Life in a new and open country had aspirations which could not be realized in any subordinate position. A separate establishment was ultimately inevitable. It had been decreed by the very laws of human nature. Man everywhere has an unconquerable desire to be the master of his own destiny.

We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another element of great significance and importance to which I shall later refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them. The Continental Congress was not only composed of great men, but it represented a great people. While its members did not fail to exercise a remarkable leadership, they were equally observant of their representative capacity. They were industrious in encouraging their constituents to instruct them to support independence. But until such instructions were given they were inclined to withhold action.

While North Carolina has the honor of first authorizing its delegates to concur with other Colonies in declaring independence, it was quickly followed by South Carolina and Georgia, which also gave general instructions broad enough to include such action. But the first instructions which unconditionally directed its delegates to declare for independence came from the great Commonwealth of Virginia. These were immediately followed by Rhode Island and Massachusetts, while the other Colonies, with the exception of New York, soon adopted a like course.

This obedience of the delegates to the wishes of their constituents, which in some cases caused them to modify their previous positions, is a matter of great significance. It reveals an orderly process of government in the first place; but more than that, it demonstrates that the Declaration of Independence was the result of the seasoned and deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the Colonies. Adopted after long discussion and as the result of the duly authorized expression of the preponderance of public opinion, it did not partake of dark intrigue or hidden conspiracy. It was well advised. It had about it nothing of the lawless and disordered nature of a riotous insurrection. It was maintained on a plane which rises above the ordinary conception of rebellion. It was in no sense a radical movement but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been guaranteed to them under the law of the land.

When we come to examine the action of the Continental Congress in adopting the Declaration of Independence in the light of what was set out in that great document and in the light of succeeding events, we can not escape the conclusion that it had a much broader and deeper significance than a mere secession of territory and the establishment of a new nation. Events of that nature have been taking place since the dawn of history. One empire after another has arisen, only to crumble away as its constituent parts separated from each other and set up independent governments of their own. Such actions long ago became commonplace. They have occurred too often to hold the attention of the world and command the admiration and reverence of humanity. There is something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity.

It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.

If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed. While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination. But remarkable as this may be, it is not the chief distinction of the Declaration of Independence. The importance of political speculation is not to be under-estimated, as I shall presently disclose. Until the idea is developed and the plan made there can be no action.

It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon those principles and which from that time forth in its development has actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an incomparable event in the history of government. It was an assertion that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to civilization.

The idea that the people have a right to choose their own rulers was not new in political history. It was the foundation of every popular attempt to depose an undesirable king. This right was set out with a good deal of detail by the Dutch when as early as July 26, 1581, they declared their independence of Philip of Spain. In their long struggle with the Stuarts the British people asserted the same principles, which finally culminated in the Bill of Rights deposing the last of that house and placing William and Mary on the throne. In each of these cases sovereignty through divine right was displaced by sovereignty through the consent of the people. Running through the same documents, though expressed in different terms, is the clear inference of inalienable rights. But we should search these charters in vain for an assertion of the doctrine of equality. This principle had not before appeared as an official political declaration of any nation. It was profoundly revolutionary. It is one of the corner stones of American institutions.

But if these truths to which the declaration refers have not before been adopted in their combined entirety by national authority, it is a fact that they had been long pondered and often expressed in political speculation. It is generally assumed that French thought had some effect upon our public mind during Revolutionary days. This may have been true. But the principles of our declaration had been under discussion in the Colonies for nearly two generations before the advent of the French political philosophy that characterized the middle of the eighteenth century. In fact, they come from an earlier date. A very positive echo of what the Dutch had done in 1581, and what the English were preparing to do, appears in the assertion of the Rev. Thomas Hooker of Connecticut as early as 1638, when he said in a sermon before the General Court that:

The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people
The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance.

This doctrine found wide acceptance among the nonconformist clergy who later made up the Congregational Church. The great apostle of this movement was the Rev. John Wise, of Massachusetts. He was one of the leaders of the revolt against the royal governor Andros in 1687, for which he suffered imprisonment. He was a liberal in ecclesiastical controversies. He appears to have been familiar with the writings of the political scientist, Samuel Pufendorf, who was born in Saxony in 1632. Wise published a treatise, entitled "The Church's Quarrel Espoused," in 1710 which was amplified in another publication in 1717. In it he dealt with the principles of civil government. His works were reprinted in 1772 and have been declared to have been nothing less than a textbook of liberty for our Revolutionary fathers.

While the written word was the foundation, it is apparent that the spoken word was the vehicle for convincing the people. This came with great force and wide range from the successors of Hooker and Wise, It was carried on with a missionary spirit which did not fail to reach the Scotch Irish of North Carolina, showing its influence by significantly making that Colony the first to give instructions to its delegates looking to independence. This preaching reached the neighborhood of Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged that his "best ideas of democracy" had been secured at church meetings.

That these ideas were prevalent in Virginia is further revealed by the Declaration of Rights, which was prepared by George Mason and presented to the general assembly on May 27, 1776. This document asserted popular sovereignty and inherent natural rights, but confined the doctrine of equality to the assertion that "All men are created equally free and independent". It can scarcely be imagined that Jefferson was unacquainted with what had been done in his own Commonwealth of Virginia when he took up the task of drafting the Declaration of Independence. But these thoughts can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was writing in 1710. He said, "Every man must be acknowledged equal to every man". Again, "The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, and so forth . . . ." And again, "For as they have a power every man in his natural state, so upon combination they can and do bequeath this power to others and settle it according as their united discretion shall determine". And still again, "Democracy is Christ's government in church and state". Here was the doctrine of equality, popular sovereignty, and the substance of the theory of inalienable rights clearly asserted by Wise at the opening of the eighteenth century, just as we have the principle of the consent of the governed stated by Hooker as early as 1638.

When we take all these circumstances into consideration, it is but natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should open with a reference to Nature's God and should close in the final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Coming from these sources, having as it did this background, it is no wonder that Samuel Adams could say "The people seem to recognize this resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven."

No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the Colonies in preparation for this great event. No doubt the speculations which had been going on in England, and especially on the Continent, lent their influence to the general sentiment of the times. Of course, the world is always influenced by all the experience and all the thought of the past. But when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.

Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors, where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.

If this apprehension of the facts be correct, and the documentary evidence would appear to verify it, then certain conclusions are bound to follow. A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if its roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.

We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

In the development of its institutions America can fairly claim that it has remained true to the principles which were declared 150 years ago. In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people. Even in the less important matter of material possessions we have secured a wider and wider distribution of wealth. The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guaranties, which even the Government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self government; the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction. But even in that we come back to the theory of John Wise that "Democracy is Christ's government". The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty.

On an occasion like this a great temptation exists to present evidence of the practical success of our form of democratic republic at home and the ever broadening acceptance it is securing abroad. Although these things are well known, their frequent consideration is an encouragement and an inspiration. But it is not results and effects so much as sources and causes that I believe it is even more necessary constantly to contemplate. Ours is a government of the people. It represents their will. Its officers may sometimes go astray, but that is not a reason for criticizing the principles of our institutions. The real heart of the American Government depends upon the heart of the people. It is from that source that we must look for all genuine reform. It is to that cause that we must ascribe all our results.

It was in the contemplation of these truths that the fathers made their declaration and adopted their Constitution. It was to establish a free government, which must not be permitted to degenerate into the unrestrained authority of a mere majority or the unbridled weight of a mere influential few. They undertook the balance these interests against each other and provide the three separate independent branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the Government, with checks against each other in order that neither one might encroach upon the other. These are our guaranties of liberty. As a result of these methods enterprise has been duly protected from confiscation, the people have been free from oppression, and there has been an ever broadening and deepening of the humanities of life.

Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meeting-house. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshipped.


Declaration of Independence


July 4, 1776


In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to 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 separation.

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 to 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 hath 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 colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain 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.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

  • For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  • For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
  • For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
  • For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
  • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
  • For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
  • For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
  • For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
  • For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

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. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. 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. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, 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 colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. 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.

JOHN HANCOCK, President

Attested, CHARLES THOMSON, Secretary
New Hampshire
JOSIAH BARTLETT WILLIAM WHIPPLE MATTHEW THORNTON
Massachusetts-Bay
SAMUEL ADAMS JOHN ADAMS ROBERT TREAT PAINE ELBRIDGE GERRY
Rhode Island
STEPHEN HOPKINS WILLIAM ELLERY
Connecticut
ROGER SHERMAN SAMUEL HUNTINGTON WILLIAM WILLIAMS OLIVER WOLCOTT
Georgia
BUTTON GWINNETT LYMAN HALL GEO. WALTON
Maryland
SAMUEL CHASE WILLIAM PACA THOMAS STONE CHARLES CARROLL OF CARROLLTON
Virginia
GEORGE WYTHE RICHARD HENRY LEE THOMAS JEFFERSON BENJAMIN HARRISON THOMAS NELSON, JR. FRANCIS LIGHTFOOT LEE CARTER BRAXTON.
New York
WILLIAM FLOYD PHILIP LIVINGSTON FRANCIS LEWIS LEWIS MORRIS
Pennsylvania
ROBERT MORRIS BENJAMIN RUSH BENJAMIN FRANKLIN JOHN MORTON GEORGE CLYMER JAMES SMITH GEORGE TAYLOR JAMES WILSON GEORGE ROSS
Delaware
CAESAR RODNEY GEORGE READ THOMAS M'KEAN
North Carolina
WILLIAM HOOPER JOSEPH HEWES JOHN PENN
South Carolina
EDWARD RUTLEDGE THOMAS HEYWARD, JR. THOMAS LYNCH, JR. ARTHUR MIDDLETON
New Jersey
RICHARD STOCKTON
JOHN WITHERSPOON
FRANCIS HOPKINS
JOHN HART
ABRAHAM CLARK



©2004 National Humanities Institute


And now dear reader, take the time to understand it better yourself, learn its meaning, so you can celebrate your independence Right!

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Setting Tyranny Free

In case you haven't noticed, tyranny is all around us today, unfortunately too many of us mistake the tyrannical actions in the headlines for the actual source of tyranny which is rarely, if ever, noted in those same headlines. That truer tyranny is far more prevalent than even our recent headlines would suggest, such as the 'hot five' I pointed out in the last post ("Touching on Tyranny - A Declaration of whose Independence?"), or the bumper crop of NSA, IRS & State dept.. scandals that have leaked since my tornado two-step & they are coming to light seemingly daily from a slew of government agencies - but by mistaking the actions for the actor, and with our attention directed towards the minions and away from the actual tyrant, the guilty one continually gets away, free to tyrannize us another day.

And no, I still don't mean Obama.

The confusion comes in part from the fact that Tyranny in a Republic wears a strikingly different mask, in the early stages anyway, than it does in the more familiar despotic governments of the banana, tin horn or royal crown variety, and when you focus so hard on finding someone to pin it on - you're not only going to miss it, but risk being overpowered by a tyranny that even the most power mad dictator can only yearn for.

I gave one example in the last post which, to my mind, comes much closer to identifying the real tyranny in our midst, closer even than that of the IRS's harassment of (conservative) 501(c)(4)applicants, or the NSA snooping, and that was the recent case of Eric Holder's DOJ going out of their way to reverse the political asylum that had already been granted to the Romelke family.

Haven't heard of the Romelkes? How odd.

“The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy”

Charles de Montesquieu quotes (French Politician and Philosopher, 1689-1755)
The Romelkes' are the German family who moved to America, legally and properly, in order to escape their government's threat to take their children from them for the crime of wanting to provide them with an education outside the control of the state. They were awarded asylum, largely because and deporting them back to Germany would clearly have meant that their children would swiftly be taken away from them - the threat of that is what caused them to emigrate to America.

Atty. General Holder's DOJ fought to reverse that judgment of asylum, because they don't feel that any 'human rights' were being violated by a government taking a parents children away from them, simply because of differences in educational policy.

What's that got to do with tyranny in America? Their judgment was not that the German government had a right to take a parents children away from them because of a dispute over educational policy, but that government as such, ours most definitely included, has the power and duty to take a parents children away from them, in cases of disputes over educational policy, for their own good.

Let that one sink in a bit.

Surprisingly, Atty. General Eric Holder is being honest in this case, believe it or not, and that should be a tip-off to you that 'human rights' have little to nothing to do with 'Individual Rights', and more often than not are in direct opposition to them (details of that will have to wait for a later post).

This is an Individual Rights issue, and not incidentally, Holder's DOJ is using the cover of Education as the means of carrying out a deliberate strike upon the nature, meaning and application of Individual Rights, asserting a power disturbingly similar to that which our own Common Core Curriculum Standards implies as well, though, at the moment, less visibly.

If you are not seeing the relation between government having the power to take a parents children from them for what it considers to be their own good, and the security of your individual rights... well... it's worth noting how the justification for one action tends to lead to more of the same. For instance, prior to our nation ratifying the 16th, 17th & 18th amendments on the federal level (which, respectively, put the govt 1st in line to your paycheck, destroyed the structure of federalism and outlawed alcohol 'for your own good'), nearly every state had, and most of them only shortly before, established local laws that made state approved schooling of our children mandatory. By law. That perhaps not so obvious (!) repudiation of property rights (which our Founders saw as the basis for all of our Individual Rights), were instrumental in ushering in the ProRegressive era, whose hallmark was opposition to individual rights in general, and property rights in particular, in favor of expanding the powers of the administrative state, in order to take an active hand in promoting "the greater good".

I know, I can hear some of you, 'Slippery Slope' fallacy, right? 'Before you know it! Cats & Dogs living together! Anarchy!', right? Correlation is not equal to Causation? True, true, all very true.

In other cases. But not this one.

This is not a case of a slippery slope, it is simply a recognition of the natural affects of intellectual gravity in drawing our actions acceptability down to the lowest conceptual level that can tolerably be reached. This is not simply causation, but the recognition of the fact that when restraints are removed, what they had once restrained is no longer being held back, and what they had once protected, will then be exposed to potential abuse - and how long is that 'potential' to remain unrealized? If you can't guess, you aren't looking at the matter properly, for just as leaving food uncovered doesn't cause ants and flies to descend upon it, that does not alter the fact that the removal of a restraining barrier is an implicit invitation to an infestation of pests.

Maintaining and upholding your Rights protects your property, life and lifestyle from the pests of power who hunger for them because they hold powerful influence over your life - your Rights are not just an impediment to their power, consuming them is itself an exercise, a savoring even, of Power. What your Rights protect, are the natural food and fuel of power. Failure to recognize that, similarly leads to Tyranny - not through causation, but through an unprotected, negligent, exposure of that which tyranny thrives upon - that which is important to your ability to live your life. Those who wield power are drawn to those ethical delicacies, and if you don't cover them you can rest assured that you will soon suffer an infestation of ever more powerful pests.

When We The People had acknowledged that the state could intrude upon our rights at the most fundamental level of the parent-child relationship, for 'the greater good', then, as water 'seeks' its lowest level, so does the political protection of our Rights seek the lowest allowable level so as to utilize and distribute the surplus, for the greater good, enabling the ProRegressive Era which followed from that normative settling.

Keep in mind that Eric Holder's DOJ has not exactly defined itself as having an interest in deporting aliens, nevertheless it has shown itself, in this case to be very interested in removing any official judgments from the record that might give the precedent for parents having more of a say in their children's education than the government does. That is something which the Obama administration's signature Common Core Curriculum Standards is heavily reliant upon, to say nothing of what that says of the idea of parents having a Right to their own children.

IOW - while We The People were all busy watching the glad hand of govt as it doles out goodies such as our 'free public education', the unseen and far more calloused hand was busily taking away our most fundamental rights, clapping and back slapping as it went.

Which brings us back to a quotation I included in the previous post from, John Locke, and from which I had removed one sentence - now's the time to look closer at that statement and the sentence I removed.

Lockeing in on Tyranny
Here's the quotation as I gave it then, first without the sentence in question, from John Locke's description of what tyranny, from his The Two Treatises of Civil Government (Hollis ed.) > CHAP. XVIII. Of TYRANNY.
" AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. [this sentence removed to be addressed below]. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion."
So well put, tyranny is "...the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to..."; such a pity that the next phrase undermines it so thoroughly.

And here is the following phrase,
"...And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage ..."[emphasis mine]
Do you see the implication? The idea that using power " for the good of those who are under it", as long as it's not for your own benefit, invites and encourages not only self deception, but a never before imagined total tyranny over the lives of others... for their own good. This get out of conscience free card, claims that as long as you are doing whatever it is you are doing is for the good of others, then you are absolved from cares over exercising power beyond right and over your fellow man. This should be terrifying because it is corrosive of all legal and ethical barriers and Rights as such. "For their own good" was not only the justification for ObamaCare itself today, but for state mandated public schooling, income tax withholding and it was the justification for the 18th amendment banning alcohol, not to mention for that venerable Legal icon of the left and right, Judge Oliver Wendel Holmes, in ruling that govt had the right to sterilize a woman (Buck vs Bell), for her, and our, own good - because HE thought it would be best for Her.

As I noted a few years ago:
"... a women considered to be feeble minded, should not be allowed to burden society with her off spring... that means that in his opinion, and that of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, he thought is sensible to force her having her tubes tied because she was, in the unstated opinion of the court 'poor white trash', or stated in the politicaly correct way of the day, 'feeble minded'. Holmes stated,

"It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
(BTW, she was subsequently found to not be 'feeble minded'. Sorry. You can read a bit more about these well intentioned proregressives in American history here.)..."
What the meaning of Locke's errant sentence invites, is what has proven to be the worst kind of tyranny over mankind, the kind where a person can feel good about being tyrannical, without a hint of guilt, because their tyrannical acts are excused as being done for your own good. Incidentally, I do forgive Locke for not having thought of that, since in his day, the modern sort of men who'd tyrannize you for your own good, had yet to make much of a splash in history. The tyrants of his age were more of the old school head-chopping-off sort, which he was intimately aware of.

What is so dangerously seductive about that sentence, is that it enables people who believe they have your best interests in mind - and I do believe that most of the people behind the most tyrannical actions believe and tell themselves this - to put what they want for you, in place of whatever you might want for your own life, for your own good and happiness. You can just imagine the thinking of the DOJ, and others, running along the lines of this, can't you?:
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?

Thomas Jefferson: First Inagural Adddress, 1801
'Sure the Romelke family means well for their children, but what they don't realize, due to their narrow (and intolerant) beliefs, is that we know what is best, dut to our more scientific understanding, what is best for them, look, here's our statistics proving it. And not just for them, but for all our people, and if we allow them to do what they want, then people will get it into their minds that they can just do whatever they think is right too, despite what we can clearly see is best for them and for the greater good... and if that is allowed, then... people will do whatever they want... cats & dogs living together... anarchy!'
Locke's phrase was a 'common sense' observation which Locke failed to pursue the implications of. To his credit though, he did not fail to identify the keystone, which if withdrawn, brings gravity's free fall fully into effect, from John Locke, The Two Treatises of Civil Government (Hollis ed.) > CHAP. XVIII. Of TYRANNY.
" It is a mistake, to think this fault is proper only to monarchies; other forms of government are liable to it, as well as that: for wherever the power, that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many. Thus we read of the thirty tyrants at Athens, as well as one at Syracuse; and the intolerable dominion of the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better."
All of the ProRegressives plans for your own good, would be and should be (are: See the clauses under Article 1, Section 8) ) pre-empted by the constitutional restraints upon government, keeping it within its proper bounds of upholding and defending the rights of its citizens to live their own lives, rather than allowing govt to enlarge its powers to see that our lives reflect the life that government sees as being for their and the greater good.

Natural Law, and its barriers for keeping your property, which ultimately means, because it is derived from, the property which you have in your own life, safe and secure from those who'd seize it for their own purposes. From James Madison's essay on Property,
"...In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage. In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own..."
That is what Liberty is and what it represents, and it is only from an understanding of the full meaning and import of Natural Law, and the implications of violating it, that our Rights, and the Constitution itself, can be defended.

Tyranny Today
Power, freed from our understanding of Rights, is free to keep you unfree. As I said back in January, the actions so apparent under this administration, weren't assaults upon religion, free speech, the 2nd Amdt, freedom of association, or any other particular right, rather they have been a blatant attack upon Individual Rights as such, and especially their political root, Property Rights. And because they weren't called upon it then, we are seeing such a wide scale of abuse as the news brings to us afresh every day.

Tyranny results, just as water wets and fire burns, from not restraining power from that which it naturally seeks to extend itself over - whether it is for your personal benefit or theirs is immaterial. Marx wanted to abolish Private Property, he identified that as the basis for his entire 'philosophy', but he lacked the imagination to explain how, and amateurs like Lenin & Stalin, were to clumsy to conceive of any way other than brute force and murder, to carry it off.

Pro(re)gressives, on the other hand, saw how to pull it off, and that is what the administrative state accomplishes, it is the bureaucratic means of abolishing private property by removing the power of choice from the possession of material objects or lives. While you might nominally retain possession, and believing the fairy tale that 'possession is 9/10's of the law', they retain power over your right to use it as you see fit - what right of possession do you possibly retain, if you do not have the right to use it when and how you choose? Ironically, the Progressives saw what the original liberals (referred to as Classical Liberals today) only glimpsed, that Intellectual Property is the root of Property, and without the identification and defense of that - no property, and no Rights, can ever be secure, and no laws can consistently defend them.

The regulatory state is a violation of your rights by its very nature, and by its existence alone, and its purpose is to interpose the governments will over your ability to choose what to do with what is yours. If we do not abolish the IRS, the EPA, the Dept of Ed, etc., our government will use the mechanism of The Law, which was designed to protect our Rights, to wither them away.

And it was with that in mind, and in reply to those who attempted a defense of rights and property without fully understanding either, that Madison said:
"There cannot be different laws in different states on subjects within the compact without subverting its fundamental principles, and rendering it as abortive in practice as it would be incongruous in theory."
In a Republic, tyranny arises either through laws that have been written without respect for their true purpose - preserving the rights and property of their citizens - and their unlawful powers outlive the lives and times of those who write them, accreting and permeating every aspect of our lives, through the EPA, Dept of Ed, IRS, FDA, DHS, which impose their choices over yours, for your own, and for the greater good, over everything from the legal size of Big Gulps, how a Doctor shall be allowed to prescribe care - or not - for their patients. They are the means of nationalizing a nation.

The other track tyranny can take in a Republic, which the first track will eventually lead to, is that through too many laws of unlimited scope and ill defined powers, the law itself soon loses the respect of, and so its authority over, the people. In either case, power is unleashed to run wherever the ever more restless will of the people can be led, and in that anarchy of mega law chaos, a leader, a single ruler, is very likely to be sought out. Both approaches though, entail and .... the discrediting and unprincipled use of the law.

Which brings us around to those misguided few who are seeking to defend the constitution by destroying it, through the nullity of nullification - in the next post.

Monday, June 03, 2013

Tornadoes suck... but people are pretty darn cool!

Well the tornadoes that struck St. Charles MO last Friday, included our house in their tour, and while it didn't flatten our house, as it did to so many, it bashed us up pretty good all the same - still, though shook up, we're all ok.

You know the old saying "You find out who your real friends are when the chips are down?" Well I'm pleased to say that the ones I thought were my friends, proved me to be right about them (that's a little poke at me, on behalf of J & D :-) ). We had numerous calls, messages and tweets from friends far & wide who were eager to drop everything and come help out, and while due to space & frazzled brains, we kept it to a small number of nearby friends and old neighbors, it's nice to know that so many others would have showed up just as eagerly to help, lift, pack & , intoxicate & clean.

Thank you all so very much! Tornadoes definitely suck, but people proved themselves once again to be pretty darned cool.

The last few days have been a stressful, sleepless blur, especially now at 3:00 a.m., but I'd like to take a moment of semi quiet, and  pass on a little of what happened in the last 48 hrs, especially to those I haven't been able to reply to yet.

A couple of my wife Carol's TWA friends, Jerry & Dereck, had come to St. Louis Thursday to attend an event and spend the night with us. After the event that night, we'd driven home through some very nasty weather, but Friday evening seemed like any other overcast night; it seemed likely that we'd get a little rain, a little wind, some lightning & thunder, something to ooh & ahh over, but no biggee otherwise.

Missouri weather changes fast.

Jerry headed back home to Illinois, & I'd just driven our daughter Rachel to go rollerskating with some friends a couple miles away, and everything still seemed relatively normal. But coming home the lightening started flashing and right as I was turning back onto our street, the weather warning sirens were going off and the clouds were darkening quickly.

Hmmm.

It still wasn't raining when I walked in the house, but Carol & Dereck were on the deck tying down the gazebo cover in case the storm picked up, and right about then we noticed the clouds were forming into a circular bank... hmm... and then between walking over to help tie them tie the last knot, and looking back up, the sky'd gone deep dark. We stepped back and checked the weather radar and it didn't look so great, to put it mildly. I pulled out my cell phone to call Rachel and tell her I was going to spoil her night and come back and pick her up, and as I was talking with her I glanced over my shoulder and saw the sight no one wants to see in their neighborhood, the debris foot of a tornado, a tall wall of swirling grey, rushing towards us from behind the tree line... sooo... I'm hollering at Carol & Dereck that we needed to get in the basement quick, calling the dogs and while I'm also telling Rachel to "...stay calm, all's well..." and right then the power went out.

As we rushed into the music room in our basement, and knelt down in the corner, we could feel a huge pressure build in our ears, and then as I'm telling Rachel on the phone, "It'll be all right Rachel, I'll be..." there was a loud WHAMMM!!!!, and the house shook, there was a bone wrenchingly loud blast of breaking glass & splintering wood and a swirling white noise for several seconds, and then it was past.

We came out of the room and it was full dark, outside and in. The doors to our entertainment area were wide open, there was rain streaming in where the atrium windows had been on the back wall of the house, and the dining room windows, frame & all (Jerry had a few choice words for our builder afterwards) had been torn out of the front of the house and was laying in the yard. Shattered glass was everywhere crunching under our feet, leaves were all over, and there was some weird puffy stuff all over the floor, the furniture, the walls, and every where else. Once we got flashlights we could see that the puffy stuff was the insulation from our attic, and it looked like Christmas Tree Flocking - anyone remember that stuff? - the entire house, everything, every nook and cranny, the mirrors, were all pasted with this fiberglass insulation.

Still, all in all, especially with the recent devastation of Moore Oklahoma fresh in mind, things didn't seem so bad for us in our house, other than the mess of course. But as I looked outside, things didn't look so good. Our neighbors roofs were banged up, huge chunks of siding were gone from their houses, deck rail & sections of deck were thrown down, a couple garage doors had been smashed in by the tornado, which kept on going, taking out the entire side of their garage walls. but as I pounded on their doors, everyone came up safe & sound and happy to be able to say that.

Then I turned around I saw the right side of our house - the siding was all gone and the upper half triangle of wall, everything between the siding & the eaves, was gone... nothing there except for the inside of our attic.

Uh-oh.

I began walking around the side of the house, the satellite dish had taken out a couple rows of garden bricking, our patio furniture was gone, our full sized stainless steel BBQ was gone, the gazebo we'd knotted down on the deck was amazingly still there, but the deck chairs, were gone and the deck dining table was pasted into  what remained of the deck rail under the gazebo... ahh... crud.

On the other side of the house, the siding was gone and the wall was bowing out. In Chad's room, the front bedroom on the side with the missing section of wall, the ceiling had collapsed and there was nothing but open air through the missing wall, same with bathroom, and water stains were quickly appearing throughout our living room ceiling.

We began making calls, and our insurance agent, John Knecht (he's awesome) found a disaster recovery crew, and then found a way past their initial "Sunday will be the earliest..." and had them out there within two hours; they pro-boarded up our attempts at filling the windows, tarped the house & began the inspection.  The entire time the crew is climbing all around the house, nailing, tarping, assessing... with the entire house coated in fiberglass insulation... Carol is cleaning the kitchen table; she's rattling off insurance & account details to John helping arrange this and that, but all the while cleaning and pledging the kitchen table & snapping at anyone who set something on it, wiping, polishing... I managed not to laugh out loud, but it was surreal, we soon had this spotless, sparkling table in the midst of complete chaos. That's my Carol ;-)

We finally got her & the kids to a motel around 3:00 am, Dereck & I stayed, against the disaster folk's warnings, in the basement guest room, where he got some sleep. Dereck did. Snoring? Think of a tuba being blown into a big bass drum & played back with full reverb through a concert quality PA system... if I got an hour of sleep, it was only through totaling up all the individual minutes of head noddings. LOL.

Our house is a mess, to say the least, perhaps structurally unsound. I've got a lot of books, many that are irreplaceable, either because they're collectors items, or from my Grandpa, or have my notes in them... sure, the insurance can write a check for them, but they can't be replaced. Other family stuff, pictures, etc... we got a storage locker and moved them into it... we're all fine.

Perspective - somethings really put priorities clearly where they belong.

Tornado's suck, no doubt about it, but people are pretty darn awesome. We had lots of friends calling, tweeting and emailing offering everything from themselves, food, materials, in order to help. We had several friends there Saturday, Jerry who'd left earlier on Friday (and was nervously trying to stay ahead of the weather), turned around and drove back from Illinois, so he & Dereck to could stay on and help and tolerate my moaning & grumbling (I'm a real jerk when I'm focused on something that's bothering me and anyone interrupts me, it's ridiculous, I know, fortunately family & friends brush it off. I'm sooo lucky). Everyone wanted to help, everyone from Dana, Hoft , the Kruta's, our GGI Crew, to Tea Party friends like Patch at Poed Patriot , Gretchen of Mo Ed Watchdog to Ed of Ed's Beds who offered Chain Saw's & Mattresses (ya gotta know Ed, if we'd have needed a civil war cannon, loaded, and an industrial grade power transformer, I've no doubt they'd have appeared) and many more, all of whom are deeply, deeply appreciated.

Jerry & Dereck - sometimes a visit turns into more than you bargained for!
Tornadoes suck, but friends are awesome!
Wall separated from roof
Neighbors hit too
Fiberglass insulation everywhere


But we kept it to a small handful of friends who live close by... it's almost more stress trying to coordinate each person, having them do something while overseeing what takes a knowing individual eye on each piece, yes, no, stay, goes, etc, so we kept it small (and who are familiar with my jerkiness), and our old next door neighbors showed too up with coffee & helping hands, as well as our insurance agent, who brought himself, his daughter (partner), food and manpower, picking through what was important to handle rescue right then, the rest is covered to either be cleaned, refurbished or replaced.

All in all, we're as lucky as it gets, we're all fine, and if all we've got to worry about is sentimental stuff... damn that's lucky, and to find out on top of that, that the people you counted as friends, really and truly are - that's priceless. And Dereck, who flew out from California, got a much more action packed visit than he bargained for, and now finally understands that tornado's ARE worse than earthquakes!

Ok, I'm way passed stupid-tired, thank you all who offered help and well wishes... there will soon be a need for Scotch!

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Memorial Day: Ideas worth dying for

Since 1789, the members of America's armed forces have placed their lives in harms way by taking some version of this oath:
"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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
A heartbreakingly large number of them have lost their lives in service to that oath, and we remember them today.

It seems to me, that we can further honor their memories, by attending to what they pledged their lives to defend, from all enemies, foreign and domestic, bearing true faith and allegiance to, the Constitution of the United States of America.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...."
Remember those who lost their lives in service to this nation.

Honor them by remembering, and preserving, what they died defending.

One other suggestion, that document is only paper without those ideas of liberty which animate it - and they cannot truly live, if they do not live within you, the citizens of this nation, which those brave men and women gave their lives for. Fundamental to those ideas of "...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." for which the Constitution justly instituted our government to secure and uphold, was an understanding that made them more than just words, and which were ably summed up in James Madison's essay On Property, which ends with:
"...If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments."
I urge you to read the entire essay, it is not long (much shorter than most of my posts), and remember, especially today, that as the ideas within it have proven to be worth dying for, they should also be worth living for.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Touching on Tyranny - A Declaration of whose Independence?

Spring has sprung and while the bi-termal scandals are blooming furiously in Washington D.C., there has been a rare whiff of agreement between commentators ranging from MSNBC, to Fox to the Washington Post: the word in the air is Tyranny, and it is here, there and everywhere.

However, like Inigo Montoya, I'm not so sure dat word means wat dey tink it means. Not that there isn't evidence of tyranny abounding all around us...there most certainly is... I just am not so sure that if we took a walk together to see the sights, that we'd be pointing in as many of the same directions as we should be.

Let's take the hot media tour:
  • Benghazi - The press has caught the White house red handed.. 9 months late... that the White house has been lying, blatantly so, regarding whether or not they identified Benghazi as the work of terrorists (they didn't), as well as what they knew and when they knew it.
  • IRS - Since 2010, the IRS has been targeting conservative leaning organizations seeking the low level tax-exempt status of 501(c)(4), by way of their 'conservative sounding' names, meaning they referenced terms such as Tea Party, Liberty, Constitution or generally being Pro-American (think about that for a moment), as well as their donors. Oh, and Jewish organizations who were pro-Israel. Most left leaning organizations requesting the same status were approved poste haste, while most conservative leaning organizations seeking that status were either denied, or so tied up in red tape, that they are still waiting.
  • DOJ investigates AP Reporters - Turns out that, like most administrations, the Obama Administration doesn't appreciate leaks, but in trying to plug them they've gone to lengths that few others would attempt, maybe not even Nixon, by tracking and tapping the communications of a broad selection of AP reporters. Oops... FOX too... fair and balanced, I guess.
  • HHS Sebelius shakedown for Obamacare - Sec. Sebelieus, surprised that few in congress, left or right, are interested in forking over even more cash for the 'trainwreck' of Obamacare, decided to politely ask those whose lives and businesses it is within her power to make a living, or dying, hell, to volunteer donations so she can try and fundraise a publicity campaign for Obamacare.
  • EPA - agency for protecting a Leftist environment: - "Obama’s EPA Waives Fees For Liberal Groups 92% Of The Time, Denies Conservative Organization 93% Of The Time…: "Conservative groups seeking information from the Environmental Protection Agency have been routinely hindered by fees normally waived for media and watchdog groups, while fees for more than 90 percent of requests from green groups were waived, according to requests reviewed by the Competitive Enterprise institute."
Those are the top five issues currently on the media rotation, as of last week.

So, what's to see here?
After talking with folks, at meetings, the recent IRS protest and online, I suspect that if we were both asked to point out the actual Tyrant in these instances, I think it's very likely that in many cases we'd be pointing in different directions.

I certainly agree that there is far more than a mere whiff of tyranny in these acts, especially in the case of the IRS. And I think that it is extremely interesting, not to mention sobering, to note that, as you can see from some of these pictures that I and others took at our protest at the St. Louis IRS office earlier this week - they had called out multiple Homeland Security Vehicles (and even a chopper in L.A.!), complete with well armed occupants, to be ready and waiting to greet us for our Tuesday afternoon lunch hour protest.

Note: They did NOT call out security or the Police - they brought in Homeland Security.

Someone in the hierarchy of our government felt that at least some of those Billions of rounds of ammunition recently purchased by Homeland Security, would be wise to call up and place at the ready in order to face us working people on a lunch break, retired people, a couple folks in wheelchairs, and more than a few students.

Were they hoping for a shot heard round the world?

Still, these are instances of tyrannical actions, but the tyrant itself, IMHO, wasn't so obviously visible. I worry that identifying the actions with the IRS as the Tyrant, or the EPA, or HHS, or the DOJ or even the Obama administration itself, is a mistake, and it is one that is made in the actual tyrants favor. These tyrannical actions are not the creature itself, and I worry that calling them tyranny, tends to let the true tyrant slip out the back (Jack), unseen, unidentified and unscathed - and no, I don't mean Obama.

Let me put it this way, these are signs of tyranny in the same way as that if you found a bee coated in pollen, it would be a sign that flowers were in bloom, but the bee is not itself the flower, and doing away with the bee is not going to do anything to stop the actual source of your allergies from cranking out the pollen. Yes, these issues indicate that tyrannical actions are in the air - no doubt about that - but they too are simply indicators, effects of tyranny, not the sources of it.

Closer to the mark
Wanna see one that comes much closer to the heart of the matter? It was in the news last week as well, though you'd have to dig fairly deep to find it.
  • Dept Of Justice rejects German family's request for asylum - German home schooling family, fleeing a 1930's era law (yeah, that means it's one of the few laws leftover from the little tyrant with the funny mustache), that forbids parents educating their children outside of the state's power. Nein!
    "The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Obama Administration’s decision to deny asylum to a German homeschooling family.

    The Romeike family fled their German homeland in 2008 seeking political asylum in the United States – where they hoped to home school their children. Instead, the Obama administration wants the evangelical Christian family deported.





  • ... the Justice Dept. is ... arguing ‘it is not a human rights violation."


  • ...“If we go back to Germany we know that we would be prosecuted and it is very likely the Social Services authorities would take our children from us,” he said""
Why do I think that that's more indicative of tyranny, than the hot topics of the day? The answer can be found, and I think more easily seen, if we first look at what tyranny actually is, which will also help to illustrate how some of the currently popular libertarian 'solutions' to federal tyranny are likely to result in little more than more of the same themselves.

Tyranny Is... what exactly?
From John Locke, a description of what tyranny actually is, from his The Two Treatises of Civil Government (Hollis ed.) > CHAP. XVIII. Of TYRANNY.
" AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. [this sentence removed to be addressed below]. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion."
And the machinery that a tyrant requires in order to be able to tyrannize you, is summed up here by James Madison, from The Federalist (Gideon ed.) > No. 47: The meaning of the maxim, which requires a separation of the departments of power, examined and ascertained
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. "
And from John Adams, commenting on that which has been seen as the best antidote to tyranny, a Republic, described a Republic as :
"... It signified a government, in which the property of the public, or people, and of every one of them, was secured and protected by law. This idea, indeed, implies liberty; because property cannot be secure unless the man be at liberty to acquire, use, or part with it, at his discretion, and unless he have his personal liberty of life and limb, motion and rest, for that purpose..."
These points, and they really must be taken together, do apply directly to the hot five above, especially as regards the EPA & IRS, and all other administrative agencies, which, because our legislature has shamefully offloaded their responsibilities to them, they:
  • have been given power to write their own laws (a regulation by any other name, is a law just the same),
  • have been given power to enforce their own laws (administration by any other name is enforcement, just the same),
  • have been given power to judge themselves within their own judicial system (Govt arbitration of its own rules by any other name is arbitrary judgment, all the same).
Look back up at the quote from Madison's Federalist No. 47, and see if you don't see the shape of the beast here. But even so, what these issues still don't get to the heart of, is what it is that is at the heart of liberty itself, and through a negative light, tyranny, as well.

We often hear, often from myself, that we must have the Rule of Law, or we will be ruled by the whims of men, after all, where the rule of law ends, the power of the tyrant begins. But that leaves unsaid a dangerous assumption about laws themselves - that they are themselves in and of themselves, just. Madison touched upon this as well, in The Federalist (Gideon ed.) > No. 48: The same subject continued, with a view to the means of giving efficacy in practice to that maxim
"The founders of our republics have so much merit for the wisdom which they have displayed, that no task can be less pleasing than that of pointing out the errors into which they have fallen. A respect for truth, however, obliges us to remark, that they seem never for a moment to have turned their eyes from the danger to liberty, from the overgrown and all-grasping prerogative of an hereditary magistrate, supported and fortified by an hereditary branch of the legislative authority. They seem never to have recollected the danger from legislative usurpations, which, by assembling all power in the same hands, must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations." [emphasis mine]
At the very least, the Laws must themselves be Just, and while a written constitution is a necessary means of keeping them in line, if that constitution does not prevent the consolidation of power (which is what our famous 'Checks and Balances' are designed to do), if it does not provide boundaries to those laws by stating to the law makers that they may go this far and no farther (as our Bill of Rights do), then tyranny may be affected upon those living under that constitution every bit as tyrannically by law, as it might otherwise be done by royal whim.

Our justice dept, in denying asylum to this German family who are after all simply seeking to educate their children as they, their parents, see fit, as is their right, rips down that no trespassing sign of "This far, and no farther" from our judicial landscape, and you can be sure it does so in the hope and expectation of it not being discovered and nailed back into place.

The Justice Dept. is arguing that a German law banning home schooling (a law, BTW, leftover from the days of the little tyrant with the funny mustache... yeah, that guy) does not violate the family’s human rights." Note 'Human rights' not Individual Rights. At the risk of making an unpopular and/or laughable statement... I find this more... far more... disturbing than all of the other scandals of the week, because those hot issues are instances of existing laws and procedures being violated within the functioning of (what remains of) our constitutional framework.
(H/T for those borrowed pics from Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit, and Caroline)
Alert DHS for the Assault Chair!



Assault Chair!



I try my 'Force Push' skills on the DHS

Hennesy & Hoft



Patch & I photo-bombing

Lloyd Sloan... wordless ;-)

Watch your step indeed...

DHS faces its greatest threats - youth and laughter


This decision doesn't merely violate the law, it seeks to create law, or rather, it seeks to uncreate the very source of our laws, striking directly at the heart of Individual Rights as such. It attacks our founding understanding that Rights are inherent in our nature as human beings and that they exist prior to, and superior to, what ever it is that governments might wish to grant to, or restrict from, We The People. This is what our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, was all about, that Individual Rights are what govt's are instituted to uphold and protect, and that is not only not reflected in this decision, it is explicitly repudiated by it, it is in effect, Govt's Declaration of Independence from We The People.

This decision declares that that most fundamental of Individual Rights, a parents rights over their children, to raise them and to educate them as they see fit, are of no substance whatsoever.

It may seem small in comparison to the scandalpalooza's of the day, but I promise you that in its implications it is huge, it is a dagger thrust at the heart of Individual Rights, and it is something which Holder's DOJ explicitly went out of its way to reverse. Realize that a lower court had already granted the Romelke family asylum, and Holder's Dept of Justice chose to expend great amounts of time, effort and expense in order to overturn it!.
"...In 2010, HSLDA took the family’s case and helped them win a legal battle. They became the first family to obtain asylum based on the protection of homeschooling rights. Shortly after, the U.S. government appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration, claiming the family’s case failed to show that there was any discrimination based on religion...."
This is extremely significant, in ways that - grave though they may be - simple run of the mill illegality on the part of government apparatchiks, pales in the face of.

If the basis of the Law is not itself Just, then no number of 'no trespassing' laws will keep tyranny away, for the law itself will have become the very source and means of exercising tyranny. Our Constitution was formed from, is an expression of, and is entirely dependent upon, an understanding of Natural Law and the concept of Individual Rights which follows from that, and it cannot function as designed without that understanding being present in those the govt derives its just powers from - that'd be you & me - see the last century for reference.

The United States of America's Department of Justice has not only stated, but taken action to establish, the 'fact' that parents do not have the right, do not have A Right, to their children, where the Govt might decide it wishes to assert that it has prior ownership and claim to them. If you do not think that this has bearing on other present and future government projects, if you don't think that this has a bearing on the Common Core Curriculum Standards... if you don't think that the Melissa Harris Perry's of Common Core of the world aren't taking courage from this... you are... dreaming. And if you think that if this decision is allowed to stand, that your own Rights will continue to stand as well... then you are not even dreaming.

Property Rights - your Right to what is yours, up to and including your own life - can have no standing whatsoever, in the face of a ruling that states that a parent has no right to their own children. If a Parent has no Right to their children, let alone to the education of their children, then there are NO Property Rights. Period. And in that case, Law, as we think of it, is merely a means of posting the Ruler's will.

What dreams will come from that, are nightmarish, to say the least.

More on identifying and remedying the tyranny around us, and waking up from it, next post.