Showing posts with label Lex Rex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lex Rex. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Chris Matthews Laughs Off "Birthers", Kansas DMV Among Them
If you didn't already know, I went down to the DMV to get an Instruction Permit a few weeks back. They didn't even let me past the documentation stage. They must be "Birthers".
Why? Because my birth certificate, a newspaper article announcing my birth, and a magazine subscription bearing my name and address* weren't enough to prove I was a citizen or a resident.
So, a man can be President of these United States, arguably the highest office in the world, and not prove his citizenship status, but Son3 is denied his right to drive unless he proves his citizenship. The law applies to everybody, not just the little people.
This isn't a "race" issue, and I'm not asking Obama to "sit in the back of the bus" for not showing his birth certificate, I'm just wondering why I, who provided my birth certificate and more, am being thrown under it.
This is about rule of law. It cost one whale of a lot of money to get my birth certificate, and a lot of energy to get the newspaper article, but it wasn't enough to get a driver's license. It wouldn't cost Obama anything to submit his birth certificate for examination, but the power he wields by not producing it is too much.
He's showing his hand, and his cards say the law doesn't apply to him.
Chris Matthew's forced laughter in the above video is obviously an attempt to laugh the issue away, but it isn't funny to me. I don't get to learn to drive. I have to wait till I'm 18 and am eligible to produce more ID before I'm granted my rights.
It may be funny to people who would rather the rule of law be offered as a sacrifice to their new "Master and Commander", but it isn't funny to me. Chris Matthew's says a newspaper article and an internet image of something that looks certificate-ish are enough, but not for me.
Another civil rights movement is in order.
*If the United States Postal Service acknowledges my name and address, who can argue?
Monday, July 13, 2009
O, We Privileged Few
According to this news report about public housing in Missouri, "...the House Financial Services Committee adopted an amendment to allow guns in public housing projects."
"Allow"? What do you mean by "allow"? How can a right be "allowed"?
A right cannot be "allowed", but a privilege can; that is exactly what Americans are indoctrinated to believe. Take for example the oft used phrase,"Driving is a privilege, not a right." What makes it a privilege? Why are we required to purchase licenses and permits for so many things? Concealed Carry Permits are supposed to be a hard-won victory by the American gun owner, despite some areas of the country revoking them, yet is it now necessary to buy one's rights from the government?
This fits right along side Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, in which, during the opening remarks by Senators, one Democrat mentioned "the right to bear arms" in a list of laws that are less than clear in their possible interpretations.
Such ambiguity! There is, for some strange reason, so much debate over this sentence that the same offices that once instated this law, under new management, now reject it.
"Allow"? What do you mean by "allow"? How can a right be "allowed"?
A right cannot be "allowed", but a privilege can; that is exactly what Americans are indoctrinated to believe. Take for example the oft used phrase,"Driving is a privilege, not a right." What makes it a privilege? Why are we required to purchase licenses and permits for so many things? Concealed Carry Permits are supposed to be a hard-won victory by the American gun owner, despite some areas of the country revoking them, yet is it now necessary to buy one's rights from the government?
This fits right along side Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, in which, during the opening remarks by Senators, one Democrat mentioned "the right to bear arms" in a list of laws that are less than clear in their possible interpretations.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ~Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Such ambiguity! There is, for some strange reason, so much debate over this sentence that the same offices that once instated this law, under new management, now reject it.
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed." ~Thomas Jefferson
Today, the intense corruption in our government has eroded beyond recognition our right to keep and bear arms, and we now subscribe to privileges, that may be regulated at a whim by a majority of non-representatives.
I now refer you to a spewing forth of opinion, left on a newspaper's website by an author unknown, the topic being a local ban on smoking in public. The full quote as written follows:
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed." ~Thomas Jefferson
I have carried myself back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, I have recollected the spirit manifested in the debates, and I have conformed to the probable meaning in which it was passed.
And, in so doing, I hold to be a truth that the Second Amendment does not grant the right for individual, private citizens to keep and bear firearms without government interference on any level; rather, the Second Amendment guarantees it! No legislation can, by definition, grant any right, only declare it; rights lay dormant in every human being; nation, creed, or gender notwithstanding. One merely needs to exercise their rights for them to be made manifest.
And, in so doing, I hold to be a truth that the Second Amendment does not grant the right for individual, private citizens to keep and bear firearms without government interference on any level; rather, the Second Amendment guarantees it! No legislation can, by definition, grant any right, only declare it; rights lay dormant in every human being; nation, creed, or gender notwithstanding. One merely needs to exercise their rights for them to be made manifest.
Today, the intense corruption in our government has eroded beyond recognition our right to keep and bear arms, and we now subscribe to privileges, that may be regulated at a whim by a majority of non-representatives.
I now refer you to a spewing forth of opinion, left on a newspaper's website by an author unknown, the topic being a local ban on smoking in public. The full quote as written follows:
"It's a privelige. Most of everything you have and do is not a right... Did anyone in Emporia actually finish school?"
This is the product of over one hundred years of compromising our standards and rights to appease tyrants and their misled progeny. The National Rifle Association, for instance, prides itself on compromise, and its members never question the fact that compromise includes "giving-in" from both sides of an argument.
I would suggest that our supposed privileges are few and far between, yet our rights are so many, that they border on being innumerable. We must stop compromising our freedom away, or we will face the consequences of tyrannies that are already upon us. Privileges are for subjects, but rights are for a free people.
I would suggest that our supposed privileges are few and far between, yet our rights are so many, that they border on being innumerable. We must stop compromising our freedom away, or we will face the consequences of tyrannies that are already upon us. Privileges are for subjects, but rights are for a free people.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Democracy at Work: Influenza Fuels Draconian Legislation
As stated in the story previously posted here, a democracy will do anything to remain safe and secure. Introduced and passed unanimously by the Massachusetts Senate, S18 will institute martial law in the event of an influenza outbreak.
According to this new bill, the the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be given power:
(1) to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;
(2) to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any building or facility, and to allow the reopening of the building or facility when the danger has ended;
(3) to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated, or to destroy any material;
(4) to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;
(5) to require a health care facility to provide services or the use of its facility, or to transfer the management and supervision of the health care facility to the department or to a local public health authority;
(6) to control ingress to and egress from any stricken or threatened public area, and the movement of persons and materials within the area;
(7) to adopt and enforce measures to provide for the safe disposal of infectious waste and human remains, provided that religious, cultural, family, and individual beliefs of the deceased person shall be followed to the extent possible when disposing of human remains, whenever that may be done without endangering the public health;
(8) to procure, take immediate possession from any source, store, or distribute any anti-toxins, serums, vaccines, immunizing agents, antibiotics, and other pharmaceutical agents or medical supplies located within the commonwealth as may be necessary to respond to the emergency;
(9) to require in-state health care providers to assist in the performance of vaccination, treatment, examination, or testing of any individual as a condition of licensure, authorization, or the ability to continue to function as a health care provider in the commonwealth."
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
According to this new bill, the the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be given power:
(1) to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;
(2) to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any building or facility, and to allow the reopening of the building or facility when the danger has ended;
(3) to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated, or to destroy any material;
(4) to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;
(5) to require a health care facility to provide services or the use of its facility, or to transfer the management and supervision of the health care facility to the department or to a local public health authority;
(6) to control ingress to and egress from any stricken or threatened public area, and the movement of persons and materials within the area;
(7) to adopt and enforce measures to provide for the safe disposal of infectious waste and human remains, provided that religious, cultural, family, and individual beliefs of the deceased person shall be followed to the extent possible when disposing of human remains, whenever that may be done without endangering the public health;
(8) to procure, take immediate possession from any source, store, or distribute any anti-toxins, serums, vaccines, immunizing agents, antibiotics, and other pharmaceutical agents or medical supplies located within the commonwealth as may be necessary to respond to the emergency;
(9) to require in-state health care providers to assist in the performance of vaccination, treatment, examination, or testing of any individual as a condition of licensure, authorization, or the ability to continue to function as a health care provider in the commonwealth."
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Wilson, the Fed, and the End of a Free America: Part 1
Stemming originally from a commenting conversation I had with Mike Powers about the man in days long past, as well as the recent attention he has garnered in the opinionated-media like Glenn Beck, I'm going to express my opinion of Woodrow Wilson's Presidency.
Having gained praise from the Left for his economic plans and his furtherance of globalist agendas, and having gotten rebuked for his policies by the Right, I thought I'd center this post on Wilson's own words:
"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom." ~Woodrow Wilson, 1913, quote from his book The New Freedom.
He was speaking of the newly incepted Federal Reserve, which is not only un-Constitutional, but is no more "federal" than Federal Express.
The implications of the Federal Reserve not being federal are more than might be at first thought.
Whether Congress authorizes the monetary powers of the Federal Reserve or not, the fact remains that they have no Constitutional powers to do anything, rendering them a private entity; therefore, what you call "dollar bills" (if you would pull one out and look at the top) are actually "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES", holding no value, intrinsic or attributed, other that that of de facto imposition by the Federal Reserve.
Furthermore, as it is a private entity, the monetary power in these United States is not in the hands of elected representatives of the people, but appointed officials in the Fed's Board of Governors.
Since our monetary system is not only run but based on un-Constitutional powers, is it any wonder we're going under? What does the Constitution say about who makes the money?
"The Congress shall have power... To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;... No state shall... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts" ~U.S. Constitution
Now, today we have little Timmy Giethner testifying before Congress, when asked where it is in the Constitution that he and the Fed get their power, he responds that their power comes from the Congress.
News for ya, Timmy: Congress doesn't get the last say in government!
Having gained praise from the Left for his economic plans and his furtherance of globalist agendas, and having gotten rebuked for his policies by the Right, I thought I'd center this post on Wilson's own words:
"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom." ~Woodrow Wilson, 1913, quote from his book The New Freedom.
He was speaking of the newly incepted Federal Reserve, which is not only un-Constitutional, but is no more "federal" than Federal Express.
The implications of the Federal Reserve not being federal are more than might be at first thought.
Whether Congress authorizes the monetary powers of the Federal Reserve or not, the fact remains that they have no Constitutional powers to do anything, rendering them a private entity; therefore, what you call "dollar bills" (if you would pull one out and look at the top) are actually "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES", holding no value, intrinsic or attributed, other that that of de facto imposition by the Federal Reserve.
Furthermore, as it is a private entity, the monetary power in these United States is not in the hands of elected representatives of the people, but appointed officials in the Fed's Board of Governors.
Since our monetary system is not only run but based on un-Constitutional powers, is it any wonder we're going under? What does the Constitution say about who makes the money?
"The Congress shall have power... To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;... No state shall... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts" ~U.S. Constitution
Now, today we have little Timmy Giethner testifying before Congress, when asked where it is in the Constitution that he and the Fed get their power, he responds that their power comes from the Congress.
News for ya, Timmy: Congress doesn't get the last say in government!
Monday, December 15, 2008
Executing the Laws II
"As we reported yesterday, the Marine Corps Air and Ground Combat Center has dispatched uniformed and presumably armed (we have no confirmation of the latter) soldiers to assist the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in the operation of unconstitutional sobriety checkpoints in San Bernardino County, California, the largest county in California and the country (San Bernardino County is directly east of Los Angeles)." ~Infowars.com (Emphasis mine.)
This is in gross violation of the laws of this nation. This injustice only stands as proof of the blatant disregard for all law by those we would call "Authorities".
Firstly, on the issue of sobriety checkpoints in general, the random and warrantless searches of lawful American motorists' persons and private property without probable cause is undoubtedly illegal.
The 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which was ratified 217 years ago today (the 15th), states in full:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Those who engage in these activities argue that it is state-law that they can perform such warrantless searches.
May I direct their attention to Article VI, Section II of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Emphasis added.
Secondly, concerning the issue of members of the U.S. Military engaging in the enforcement of civil law, this violates the oft mentioned Posse Commitatus Act:
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
They might try to defend themselves by saying that the Marines are not a part of the Army or Air Force, but are a detachment of the Navy, which is not covered by Posse Commitatus. That would be silly and not in keeping with the nature of the law.
How far will it go?
Friday, October 17, 2008
What's That Rumbling Noise?
I think it's about 1.5 million American patriots rolling over in their graves.
Why have we reached such a state of depravity that we are forced to choose between a Fascist and a Socialist for president? Why must we have a government made up of professional politicians and career-long criminals? Why has my country and its people crawled, walked, skipped and jumped down the path of moral depravity?
How is it that we have broken every rule and principle of Freedom, proudly defending every institution of modern slavery?
I don't even know what America used to look like; I'm too young to even know what it was like to live in a truly free society.
"'Republic': I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober how ever they choose. Some words give you a feeling; 'Republic' is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat."... Some words can give you a feeling that make your heart warm; 'Republic' is one of those words."
~ John Wayne, in "The Alamo"
Too few people even know what "Republic" means. Too often, governments opposed to the idea of a free Republic use the word to describe their own country. (People's Republic of China, for one.)
What we have is a Federalized Constitutional Republic, but most Americans falsely call it a "Democracy". Only our elections are democratic.
A Democracy is rule by the people, but a Constitutional Republic is rule by law through representatives.
But, nobody cares. Nobody wants to care, anymore. There would be a national outcry if the voting on "American Idol" was rigged, but not if our own national elections were.
Those who realize the truth may only turn to God for the answer; others will turn to destruction.
Why have we reached such a state of depravity that we are forced to choose between a Fascist and a Socialist for president? Why must we have a government made up of professional politicians and career-long criminals? Why has my country and its people crawled, walked, skipped and jumped down the path of moral depravity?
How is it that we have broken every rule and principle of Freedom, proudly defending every institution of modern slavery?
I don't even know what America used to look like; I'm too young to even know what it was like to live in a truly free society.
"'Republic': I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober how ever they choose. Some words give you a feeling; 'Republic' is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat."... Some words can give you a feeling that make your heart warm; 'Republic' is one of those words."
~ John Wayne, in "The Alamo"
Too few people even know what "Republic" means. Too often, governments opposed to the idea of a free Republic use the word to describe their own country. (People's Republic of China, for one.)
What we have is a Federalized Constitutional Republic, but most Americans falsely call it a "Democracy". Only our elections are democratic.
A Democracy is rule by the people, but a Constitutional Republic is rule by law through representatives.
But, nobody cares. Nobody wants to care, anymore. There would be a national outcry if the voting on "American Idol" was rigged, but not if our own national elections were.
Those who realize the truth may only turn to God for the answer; others will turn to destruction.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Posse Comitatus Ignored
The Army has deployed the Third Division's First Brigade within the U.S., though it is unclear exactly where.
The stated purpose of this deployment is "crowd control" using "non lethal" weapons, but the troops will have access to automatic rifles and firearms, as well as tanks.
They are slated to remain deployed in the U.S. for twelve months; this is clearly wanton disregard for the Posse Comitatus Act.
Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the men responsible for the deployment of the military to enforce the laws of the United States may be fined or imprisoned for two years, or both.
I will update to include the place of deployment just as soon as I can.
The stated purpose of this deployment is "crowd control" using "non lethal" weapons, but the troops will have access to automatic rifles and firearms, as well as tanks.
They are slated to remain deployed in the U.S. for twelve months; this is clearly wanton disregard for the Posse Comitatus Act.
Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the men responsible for the deployment of the military to enforce the laws of the United States may be fined or imprisoned for two years, or both.
I will update to include the place of deployment just as soon as I can.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
In Defense of Free Speech
Alex Jones is a radio talk show host and documentary film maker based in Austin, Texas. He is a paleo-conservative, and he investigates political and social figureheads around America in order to uncover the inner workings of American and likewise global political structure.
While I don’t agree with him on many things, I do respect him and trust him as a news source. He claims and appears to be a Christian, and he frequently mentions the God of the Bible on his radio show.
To be honest, I saw Malkin on FOX News years ago, and I always liked her seemingly "conservative" views, but this was before I knew about her Fascist ideologies.
While I don’t agree with him on many things, I do respect him and trust him as a news source. He claims and appears to be a Christian, and he frequently mentions the God of the Bible on his radio show.
Michelle Malkin is one of the people that Alex Jones has investigated, and he isn’t exactly thrilled about her.
Malkin wrote a book, “In Defense of Internment” in 2004, explaining why she thinks Americans should be put in camps due to their “ethnicity”. She compares and defends the internment of U.S. citizens during WWII with the modern “War on Terror”. She also defends the governments use of un-Constitutional measures to "ensure our safety".
It is unquestionably illegal and un-American to lock up legal citizens simply because of their ancestry. While I understand the reasoning for it in the past, there is no excuse for it, then or now. Just my opinion, but I think I’m right.
Alex Jones confronted Michelle Malkin on her controversial views at the DNC protests. The exact details are sketchy, and I don't want to get any of the facts or timelines wrong, so I’ll let the videos speak for themselves. These videos are taken from different angles.
To be honest, I saw Malkin on FOX News years ago, and I always liked her seemingly "conservative" views, but this was before I knew about her Fascist ideologies.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
To Uphold and Defend
These policemen violated and abused the 4th & 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
These sorts of things are happening all over America. Anywhere there's a roadblock checkpoint, there's another freedom being trampled.
A policeman's first duty is to the Constitution.
Remind them of their oath.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Rights Not Enumerated II
I finally attained my Apprentice License today, so that I can at least go dove hunting before I take the Hunter Education Course.
Of course, I forgot that I left all my relevant ID at home, so I thought that I would have to get it another time. My Dad told me that I was already in the computer, so I could probably just give them my Social Security number and get it anyway. I agreed to try it.
This all took place at the Sporting Goods section at Wal*Mart, so I got an inexperienced dude that never did anything like this before. I never have forgiven Wal*Mart for them halting the sale of firearms, but a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.
After typing around on his computer for awhile, he asked if I had any ID, and I answered “No,”.
He typed awhile longer and asked for my Social Security number.
I told him my number, hoping no one of questionable legal status was listening in.
BTW, what’s the Spanish word for “eavesdropping”?
He asked for my date of birth, and I told him, “August 30, 1991.”.
He stopped typing and gently shook his head saying, “Um…uh… that would be…uh…”
I knew what he was stammering on about, he couldn’t think of the system format number for August 30.
Dad eventually said, “That would be: 08/30/91.”
“Oh, yeah.”
He typed some more, and eventually printed out the license. I signed it, and after the twenty dollars and fifty cents worth of filthy lucre changed hands, the deed was done.
Dad remembered only after we got home that before I go hunting, I have to get an HIP Stamp for hunting doves. That amounts to an extra fifty cents worth of filthy lucre, to be forfeited another day.
And so, I have thusly realized that the whole of state-run hunting is a racket.
Basically, I have begged my owners for permission to go hunting.
The governor (read: Marxist Dictator) of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius, is anti-hunter, so I must plead to my overlords in order to hunt:
“Mother Superior, may I please go a-hunting?”
“Have you successfully passed the running of the gauntlet?”
“Yea.”
“Have you given tithe unto the State?”
“Yea.”
“Have you rendered unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s?”
“Yea, threefold.”
“Then you may hunt, my child, after you pay the Agent Fee.”
Of course, I forgot that I left all my relevant ID at home, so I thought that I would have to get it another time. My Dad told me that I was already in the computer, so I could probably just give them my Social Security number and get it anyway. I agreed to try it.
This all took place at the Sporting Goods section at Wal*Mart, so I got an inexperienced dude that never did anything like this before. I never have forgiven Wal*Mart for them halting the sale of firearms, but a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.
After typing around on his computer for awhile, he asked if I had any ID, and I answered “No,”.
He typed awhile longer and asked for my Social Security number.
I told him my number, hoping no one of questionable legal status was listening in.
BTW, what’s the Spanish word for “eavesdropping”?
He asked for my date of birth, and I told him, “August 30, 1991.”.
He stopped typing and gently shook his head saying, “Um…uh… that would be…uh…”
I knew what he was stammering on about, he couldn’t think of the system format number for August 30.
Dad eventually said, “That would be: 08/30/91.”
“Oh, yeah.”
He typed some more, and eventually printed out the license. I signed it, and after the twenty dollars and fifty cents worth of filthy lucre changed hands, the deed was done.
Dad remembered only after we got home that before I go hunting, I have to get an HIP Stamp for hunting doves. That amounts to an extra fifty cents worth of filthy lucre, to be forfeited another day.
And so, I have thusly realized that the whole of state-run hunting is a racket.
Basically, I have begged my owners for permission to go hunting.
The governor (read: Marxist Dictator) of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius, is anti-hunter, so I must plead to my overlords in order to hunt:
“Mother Superior, may I please go a-hunting?”
“Have you successfully passed the running of the gauntlet?”
“Yea.”
“Have you given tithe unto the State?”
“Yea.”
“Have you rendered unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s?”
“Yea, threefold.”
“Then you may hunt, my child, after you pay the Agent Fee.”
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Frogs in Water
Helena, Arkansas has instituted a citywide 24 hour curfew on all residents regardless of age.
One must have a legitimate reason for being outside of one’s house, even if they are on their own property, or they will be sent back in or arrested.
No, I did not make a typographical error, or misunderstand the circumstances; there is, indeed, a 24 hour curfew for all residents of Helena, Arkansas.
The stated reason for this is the high drug trafficking and other such crimes.
The mayor of Helena said that this is to send a message to the criminals that “they don’t own the town, the taxpayers do”.
I am trying to imagine how it is that not allowing private citizens to go out into their own yard on a sunny day is supposed to show that the citizens are in control.
Have you ever watched the reality television show “COPS”?
Have you ever noticed that they will sit and wait until somebody goes to a “known drug house” or “known drug area” before stopping and arresting them? Well, that’s a great idea! Now, they’ll catch more baddies!
That’s like somebody watching a fire at a mall just so they can slap the wrist of any child that gets to close.
Couldn’t they just put out the fire?
No, that would spoil the big picture.
You see, it’s called “Incrementalism”. If you put a frog in a pot of water, and slowly turn up the heat, the frog will eventually boil to death without feeling a thing, because he is cold-blooded, and his body will adapt to the surrounding environment. It eventually gets to a point where the environment cannot sustain life, and the frog dies.
They are slowly, by design, taking a little bit of that freedom, and a little bit of that liberty, trying not to disturb the sensitive American mindset.
Now, to what end is this plan? What’s the endgame?
The end result for the frog is…a boiled frog.
The end result for America is…what?
I don’t know.
We can only study the facts, and hypothesize the results. Many have done this, with some guessing better than others.
“Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” ~George Orwell
One must have a legitimate reason for being outside of one’s house, even if they are on their own property, or they will be sent back in or arrested.
No, I did not make a typographical error, or misunderstand the circumstances; there is, indeed, a 24 hour curfew for all residents of Helena, Arkansas.
The stated reason for this is the high drug trafficking and other such crimes.
The mayor of Helena said that this is to send a message to the criminals that “they don’t own the town, the taxpayers do”.
I am trying to imagine how it is that not allowing private citizens to go out into their own yard on a sunny day is supposed to show that the citizens are in control.
Have you ever watched the reality television show “COPS”?
Have you ever noticed that they will sit and wait until somebody goes to a “known drug house” or “known drug area” before stopping and arresting them? Well, that’s a great idea! Now, they’ll catch more baddies!
That’s like somebody watching a fire at a mall just so they can slap the wrist of any child that gets to close.
Couldn’t they just put out the fire?
No, that would spoil the big picture.
You see, it’s called “Incrementalism”. If you put a frog in a pot of water, and slowly turn up the heat, the frog will eventually boil to death without feeling a thing, because he is cold-blooded, and his body will adapt to the surrounding environment. It eventually gets to a point where the environment cannot sustain life, and the frog dies.
They are slowly, by design, taking a little bit of that freedom, and a little bit of that liberty, trying not to disturb the sensitive American mindset.
Now, to what end is this plan? What’s the endgame?
The end result for the frog is…a boiled frog.
The end result for America is…what?
I don’t know.
We can only study the facts, and hypothesize the results. Many have done this, with some guessing better than others.
“Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” ~George Orwell
Saturday, April 26, 2008
New Term
I’m sure you’re all too familiar with the term “Politically Correct”.
When one is Politically Correct, they go out of their way to make room for everyone and everything to be happy.
But, of course, it never really works, because someone always gets the boot in the end, (sometimes literally).
I feel I am ready to announce the new “PC” word: Patriotically Correct.
This term best describes someone so eager to be called “patriotic” that they would do anything.
To be Patriotically Correct, one would support and defend every word and action of an authoritarian figure regardless of legality or common sense. One would follow the red, white, and blue band-wagon off the edge of a totalitarian cliff.
One would give anything, say anything, do, make, print, wear, or uphold anything that some "Old Glory" monger says or does, just to be Patriotically Correct, almost to the point of near madness.
Far too many people are Patriotically Correct.
But, to be truly Patriotic, you must know and uphold the Law of the Land to the point of ridicule, because in a place such as America, the only things we have to lose are our rights
Lex Rex.
When one is Politically Correct, they go out of their way to make room for everyone and everything to be happy.
But, of course, it never really works, because someone always gets the boot in the end, (sometimes literally).
I feel I am ready to announce the new “PC” word: Patriotically Correct.
This term best describes someone so eager to be called “patriotic” that they would do anything.
To be Patriotically Correct, one would support and defend every word and action of an authoritarian figure regardless of legality or common sense. One would follow the red, white, and blue band-wagon off the edge of a totalitarian cliff.
One would give anything, say anything, do, make, print, wear, or uphold anything that some "Old Glory" monger says or does, just to be Patriotically Correct, almost to the point of near madness.
Far too many people are Patriotically Correct.
But, to be truly Patriotic, you must know and uphold the Law of the Land to the point of ridicule, because in a place such as America, the only things we have to lose are our rights
Lex Rex.
Monday, March 31, 2008
The War Between The States: Rebellion or Adherence?
For the most part, one cannot speak of the so-called "Civil War" without mentioning rebellion.
I feel that this is a disservice to American history, whether one is for or against the ideologies at war. The simplest research into the matter would show that the South was not in rebellion, rather, it was the North.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
To willingly create any law against the Constitution is treason.
The southern cause was to leave the Union due to Washington D.C.'s lack of respect for the Constitution. The rights of individual states were being infringed upon.
To be in rebellion, whether on a personal or national level, there must something or someone to rebel against. In the case of the War Between the States, it would, at first, appear that the South started the war against the morally upright and abolitionist North.
However, it would seem war was started, in fact, by the North; hence the term "War of Northern Aggression".
The southern states primary objectives were to separate from what they felt was a tyrannical government, not to control it.
There were no apparent provocative attempts at war on the part of the South once their provisional government was set up. And it would seem that such an endeavour, by itself, was not at ideological fault, as I shall explain.
*************************************************
"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.
Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit." ~January 12, 1848.
Who do you think said this?
Robert E. Lee? Sam Davis? Stonewall Jackson?
It was Abraham Lincoln. Not twenty years later would he face such a situation. Not a revolution, but a "shaking off". Apparently, Lincoln wasn't one to allow the practice of what he preached. Sort of ironic, huh?
Lincoln made quite a few contradictory statements such as this.
Popular culture has it that Lincoln freed all the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation; truth be told, he didn't. That famous document only freed slaves in states that were "in rebellion", not anywhere else.
"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people.
There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."
~ Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858.
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;"~ Acts 17:26.
It would seem he didn't much care at all for ending slavery, and clearly states that the war was not about slavery, instead, he wanted to "save the Union" at any cost:
"My paramount object, is to save the Union, and not either destroy or save slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing some and leaving others in slavery, I would do it.
If I could save it by freeing all, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union." ~Lincoln in a letter to Greeley.
Sad to say, Lincoln also denied the Christian faith:
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." ~ 1862 letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after the death of Willie Lincoln.
**************************************************
The point I am making is that to say the war was about slavery is a deep injustice to the 618,000 men that died in one of the most uncivil wars in history. It appears that the war was about the prevalent issue of state's rights, versus the centralized control of Washington, D.C.
The Southern states tried to remove themselves from the Union, and had no intention of provoking or invading their Northern counterpart. They felt that the differences between the southern and northern cultures were too great to stay in the same union. And even today some feel that the United States has too diverse a populace to remain a peaceful nation.
While the legality of secession is debatable, the founding documents seem to overwhelmingly support that choice by each state. The Southern states were adhering to the letter of the law.
Many states' constitutions contain clauses which indicate that the state has the unquestionable right to dissolve the contract binding it to the U.S.
Think of what "U.S.A." means.
United States of America, the Union of States, before the War of Northern Aggression, it was known as these United States, not the United States, denoting the fact that the Union was made up of several sovereign states.
In fact, when the Treaty of Paris was signed, ending the American Revolution, Britain made peace with each state individually, not the whole Union.
**********************************************************
I used to always enjoy movies where the glorious Union troops would wipe out rabble encampments to protect the United States from the dreaded "Johnny's", but, they were Americans killing Americans.
One should note that the South made no offensive manuevers until the war was well underway, and even that was a last ditch effort to end the war quickly, as the South did not want a war with the North.
The entire war was an unnesesary and revolting display of rash insanity.
Each side fought for their nation, and no one really won that war, but I have a new found respect for the men in butternut and grey. I happen to have relatives who fought on both sides, one of which actually served in the Second Confederate Congress.
I wonder just what would have happened if the South won the War between the States.
I feel that this is a disservice to American history, whether one is for or against the ideologies at war. The simplest research into the matter would show that the South was not in rebellion, rather, it was the North.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
To willingly create any law against the Constitution is treason.
The southern cause was to leave the Union due to Washington D.C.'s lack of respect for the Constitution. The rights of individual states were being infringed upon.
To be in rebellion, whether on a personal or national level, there must something or someone to rebel against. In the case of the War Between the States, it would, at first, appear that the South started the war against the morally upright and abolitionist North.
However, it would seem war was started, in fact, by the North; hence the term "War of Northern Aggression".
The southern states primary objectives were to separate from what they felt was a tyrannical government, not to control it.
There were no apparent provocative attempts at war on the part of the South once their provisional government was set up. And it would seem that such an endeavour, by itself, was not at ideological fault, as I shall explain.
*************************************************
"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.
Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit." ~January 12, 1848.
Who do you think said this?
Robert E. Lee? Sam Davis? Stonewall Jackson?
It was Abraham Lincoln. Not twenty years later would he face such a situation. Not a revolution, but a "shaking off". Apparently, Lincoln wasn't one to allow the practice of what he preached. Sort of ironic, huh?
Lincoln made quite a few contradictory statements such as this.
Popular culture has it that Lincoln freed all the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation; truth be told, he didn't. That famous document only freed slaves in states that were "in rebellion", not anywhere else.
"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people.
There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."
~ Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858.
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;"~ Acts 17:26.
It would seem he didn't much care at all for ending slavery, and clearly states that the war was not about slavery, instead, he wanted to "save the Union" at any cost:
"My paramount object, is to save the Union, and not either destroy or save slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing some and leaving others in slavery, I would do it.
If I could save it by freeing all, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union." ~Lincoln in a letter to Greeley.
Sad to say, Lincoln also denied the Christian faith:
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." ~ 1862 letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after the death of Willie Lincoln.
**************************************************
The point I am making is that to say the war was about slavery is a deep injustice to the 618,000 men that died in one of the most uncivil wars in history. It appears that the war was about the prevalent issue of state's rights, versus the centralized control of Washington, D.C.
The Southern states tried to remove themselves from the Union, and had no intention of provoking or invading their Northern counterpart. They felt that the differences between the southern and northern cultures were too great to stay in the same union. And even today some feel that the United States has too diverse a populace to remain a peaceful nation.
While the legality of secession is debatable, the founding documents seem to overwhelmingly support that choice by each state. The Southern states were adhering to the letter of the law.
Many states' constitutions contain clauses which indicate that the state has the unquestionable right to dissolve the contract binding it to the U.S.
Think of what "U.S.A." means.
United States of America, the Union of States, before the War of Northern Aggression, it was known as these United States, not the United States, denoting the fact that the Union was made up of several sovereign states.
In fact, when the Treaty of Paris was signed, ending the American Revolution, Britain made peace with each state individually, not the whole Union.
**********************************************************
I used to always enjoy movies where the glorious Union troops would wipe out rabble encampments to protect the United States from the dreaded "Johnny's", but, they were Americans killing Americans.
One should note that the South made no offensive manuevers until the war was well underway, and even that was a last ditch effort to end the war quickly, as the South did not want a war with the North.
The entire war was an unnesesary and revolting display of rash insanity.
Each side fought for their nation, and no one really won that war, but I have a new found respect for the men in butternut and grey. I happen to have relatives who fought on both sides, one of which actually served in the Second Confederate Congress.
I wonder just what would have happened if the South won the War between the States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Websites That Make This One Possible
