Sunday, April 30, 2006

If we are wise enough.....

"There is a wide difference, also, between military establishments in a country seldom exposed by its situation to internal invasions, and in one which is often subject to them, and always apprehensive of them. The rulers of the former can have a good pretext, if they are even so inclined, to keep on foot armies so numerous as must of necessity be maintained in the latter. These armies being, in the first case, rarely, if at all, called into activity for interior defense, the people are in no danger of being broken to military subordination. The laws are not accustomed to relaxations, in favor of military exigencies; the civil state remains in full vigor, neither corrupted, nor confounded with the principles or propensities of the other state. The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights. The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people.
.
"In a country in the predicament last described, the contrary of all this happens. The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power.
.
"The kingdom of Great Britain falls within the first description. (1)An insular situation, and a powerful marine, guarding it in a great measure against the possibility of foreign invasion, supersede the necessity of a numerous army within the kingdom. A sufficient force to make head against a sudden descent, till the militia could have time to rally and embody, is all that has been deemed requisite. No motive of national policy has demanded, nor would public opinion have tolerated, a larger number of troops upon its domestic establishment. There has been, for a long time past, little room for the operation of the other causes, which have been enumerated as the consequences of internal war. This peculiar felicity of situation has, in a great degree, contributed to preserve the liberty which that country to this day enjoys, in spite of the prevalent venality and corruption. If, on the contrary, Britain had been situated on the continent, and had been compelled, as she would have been, by that situation, to make her military establishments at home coextensive with those of the other great powers of Europe, she, like them, would in all probability be, at this day, a victim to the absolute power of a single man. 'T is possible, though not easy, that the people of that island may be enslaved from other causes; but it cannot be by the prowess of an army so inconsiderable as that which has been usually kept up within the kingdom.
.
"If we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an (1)insulated situation...."
.
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #8
.
Mr. Hamilton had this to say, about the U.S. Citizens Right to Keep and Bear Arms;
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
.
Seems Alex had a valid point there, didn't he? In consideration of the present day political environment, are we, indeed, wise enough?
.
We have mayors from around the country that just finished a summit bent on Usurpation from a different angle. Led by the notorious super-rich, anti-gun politico Michael Bloomberg. They claim the Federal isn't doing enough on "illegal guns". If the Second Amendment Right attached to the United States Constitution is examined in the absolute sense as was intended. Just what would be an "illegal gun" anyways? In my minds eye, an "illegal gun", would be one that was stolen from its legal owner. Or one that was used in an "illegal" manner.
.
The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms has already been trampled on, perversed, regulated, ordinanced, subverted and schemed upon enough. To the point where there is NO doubt that it has been Infringed upon.
.
The recommendation that would seem most worthy of consideration for these scheming mayors. Would be that they return to following the principles found in the Constitution. Rather than on scheming on how to further undermine the Right which is considered the First Law of Nature.
.
A firearm is just a tool, albeit a deadly tool. A gun, in and of itself, is not "illegal" in the True Constitutional sense. The hands that use the tool in an "illegal" manner are what is criminal. Would suggest to these supposed 'Public Servants', (that's right gentlemen, that is ALL that you are - SERVANTS!). That you focus on solving the inner-city problems in a Constitutionally LEGAL fashion!
.
It is good to remind you here, that the American Gun-Owning Citizen has a very long memory. As the democrats found out the hard way in the last few elections. Perhaps you gentlemen need the same reminder? Elections, for many of you, are right around the corner....

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Straight from the horse's mouth....

Found the headline linked article at Keep and Bear Arms, and it is unbelievable! Oklahoma State Rep. Mike Shelton made the following statement, "During states of emergency, I think police need total control. They don't need to worry who has guns and who doesn't. If the governor calls for Oklahomans to relinquish their guns, the public needs to do so."
.
Excuse me?
.
Sent the representative, (lower case intentional), the following E-Mail: mikeshelton@okhouse.gov
.
Representative,
.
Have you read the Constitution of the United States of America? Do you have any idea of the meaning of the Second Amendment to that Constitution? Have you any idea that we are a Republic? Do you realize that what you advance can be construed as Treasonous?
.
Do you know who the Legimate Authority is? Or who the Ultimate Authority is? Must I remind you, that both you and the police are public servants? And that is all? Would highly suggest that you read the Federalist Papers. As Mr. James Madison pointed out in Federalist No. 46:
.
"These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other."
.
You would do well to consider that you advocate direct Constitutional Violation of your Constituent's Right:
.
"Under the proposed Constitution, the federal acts will take effect without the necessary intervention of the individual States."

- James Madison, Federalist No. 54
.
Disdainfully,
.
E. David Quammen
GunShowOnTheNet.com
.
Apparently this person somehow got into office without having any understanding of the Second Amendment at all. And this in a state that has experienced a direct terrorist attack! Were the police or ATF, (one of the supposed intended targets), able to stop Timothy McVeigh? Does the representative remember how many children died in that horrible act of cowardice? And that there are still those who believe that there was a deeper underlying conspiracy?
.
It is inconceivable that a representative of the people would advocate they be disarmed, especially at a time when they very well might need arms the most! Was anything learned from New Orleans at all? It made it very clear to many American citizens that government cannot be relied upon or trusted! This representative needs removed from office as soon as is humanly possible!


Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Seems that Thomas had it right....

"In America, no other distinction between man and man had ever been known but that of persons in office exercising powers by authority of the laws, and private individuals. Among these last, the poorest laborer stood on equal ground with the wealthiest millionaire, and generally on a more favored one whenever their rights seem to jar."
- Thomas Jefferson (Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786)
Reference: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Lipscomb and Bergh, eds., 17:8.
Quote from the Patriot Post - Founders' Quote Daily
You know, it really is to bad that Tom is considered as one of those, as many say these days, 'old dead white guy presidents' . Especially, when you read Tom's writings and see how much of a champion he was for Freedom, Liberty and Rights. Tom knew it was the average working stiff that was the backbone of America.
These days the average person has to buy, lease, or obtain permission in order to exercise a God-given Right. A Right that was supposed to be guaranteed in the United States Constitution. But now, in addition to that Right being perversely interpretted by the Usurpreme Court. We have government trampling on it, as well as those in the business 'class'.
So, I guess Tom had it wrong, for it seems that those with wealth won out after all. And the poorest laborer is led like a lamb to the slaughter.
How much more despicable does it have to get. Before We The People throw off these perverse chains that bind us, and restore our Republic back to the way it was intended? Or, will we even try?

Monday, April 24, 2006

A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE;

A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE;
.
Well, it seems Mr. Alexander Hamilton had a differing view from that of many of the other Framers. After consideration of the following points he raised, I'm inclined to agree with Alex....
.
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.
.
"But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired..
.
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #84
.
You know, it appears that Alex had a valid point, doesn’t it? For there have indeed been men, (and women), ‘disposed to usurp’. And they have indeed found ‘plausible pretense’ for claiming that power. Which fact has ‘afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government’.

What I find most interesting however, is Alex’s statement of “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous”. As well as, They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted”.

“Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights”…

Alex utilized the word ‘principal’ which leads me to examine just what are the principles of the U.S. Constitution? Let’s take a look, shall we?

The Principles of the United States Constitution:
.
A good place to start would seem to be the preamble to the Constitution;
.
"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."
.
Constitution:
1 : an established law or custom : ORDINANCE. 2 a : the physical makeup of the individual comprising inherited qualities modified by environment b : the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something. 3 : the act of establishing, making, or setting up. 4 : the mode in which a state or society is organized; especially : the manner in which sovereign power is distributed. 5 a : the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it. b : a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization

A government of We the People.

Unity.

Justice.

Insurance of Domestic Tranquility.

Common Defense.

General Welfare.

Security of the Blessings of Liberty in the present and the future.

Hmmmm, seems to me we have a problem here. What do you think? Do you feel that your part of the government? Do you feel united? Is it Justice that a woman, whom fled a ruthlessly oppressive dictatorship is being treated as a criminal, for exercising a Right GUARANTEED by the First Amendment?

Are you comfortably insured of your tranquility?

Do you feel secure in the ‘common defense’? Especially, in light of the fact that the courts have ruled that, it is governments duty to provide for the ‘common defense’. But, that they have no duty to provide for individual defense. And to top that off. Many of the states want to restrict or prohibit your rightful exercise of providing for your individual defense?

Can someone please explain how that, in any way, promotes the ‘General Welfare’?

Do you feel that your ‘Liberty’ is secure? Let us examine the word ‘Liberty’. I’ve heard it used some place before….where was it? Oh yeah, now I remember;
"They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds. With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as little as possible the rights of human nature. This will result from their integrity. They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however, expressly restrained. But whether they will INTERMEDDLE with that PALLADIUM of our liberties or not, I leave you to determine."



  • Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/16/1788)
And, if I remember correctly there was another place I’ve seen it before as well;
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic Usurpation of Power by rulers. The Right of the Citizens to Keep and Bear Arms has JUSTLY been considered, as the PALLADIUM of the LIBERTIES of The Republic; since it offers a strong moral check AGAINST the Usurpation and Arbitrary Power of rulers; and will generally...ENABLE the PEOPLE to RESIST and TRIUMPH OVER THEM."



  • Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
I don’t know about anyone else, but with all of the various bans, ordinances, restrictions, qualifications, bounds, rules and regulations set in place. All of which were imposed on something that was never to be infringed upon in the first place. And in consideration of what Alex points out above, They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted”. I surely don’t feel that my liberty is secure, do you? And, I damn sure don’t think that the future looks anymore promising. In light of what is happening to our ‘Liberty’ today….





...A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, is a miserable creature...

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Saturday, April 22, 2006

This from a friend of mine covering our behinds 'over there'....

The following is from a buddy of mine stationed over in Yemen. His name is Justin and he resigned his post as a Marine Corps. Recruiter to 'get into the mix'. Justin's a good man and I appreciate that he put his ass on the line to help secure our country from cowardly 'terrorist's'.
He has a rare rifle, at the shop I used to work at, waiting for him on his return. (It's a beauty to!).
.
Justin provided some photo's of him and some of our guys training in Yemen. And also wrote the following:
.
" Hey all. Okay, so I'm back among the living, (and clean and well fed, whew!) So they're keeping me pretty... 'busy' over here, but I just had a second to email, so I wanted to give you all an update. The specifics, of course, cannot be sent over Gmail ;) but here's what I've got. Yemen sucks. Just did some training with a counter-terrorism unit, (that doesn't exist, so don't ask,) and it was awesome! These guys are ABSOLUTELY FEARLESS! They are pretty much hunted in their own country, (they have rounded up somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 Al-Qaida in the region since the war started.) Some of the pictures I'm sending you are from our 'shoot house,' an urban training facility we use. I was an observer and evaluator for the Yemenese guys, along with some Army Special Forces guys, and then my Marines got to play. (You'll see some of the shoots we did in the pictures I'm attaching.) Unfortunately, I was observing and instructing most of the time, so I didn't get to pull triggers as much as I would have liked, but oh well. Other than that, been pretty busy with bunker drills, camp security/security patrols in the local area (and others,) etc., etc."



That' Justin with the sunglasses on the right. Thanks bud! And all our people covering us!


Hope the best for Justin. As well as each and every one of our guys putting themselves in harms way for us. And may God bless and keep them safe and bring them back home in one piece! Thank you again, one and all!





Friday, April 21, 2006

The Oath of Citizenship....

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
.
Excuse me? Does anyboy else see something wrong with this picture?
.
First off, how is one to support or defend the Constitution, it they have been disarmed or restricted by their perverse state government?
.
Secondly, we are expected to bear arms, (as I assume the same applies to natural citizen's as well). From where are we to get these arms if they have been restricted or banned by the states?
.
Thirdly, it is requested that this oath is sworn by affirmation to God? Did not the USurpreme Court dismiss God a few years ago? This of course, after He had lifted us up and made our nation great.
.
What kind of vile, hypocritical game are you people in government playing against us?

And fired the shot heard round the world.....

Concord Hymn
.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
.
By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
.
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
.
Here once the embattled farmers stood
.
And fired the shot heard round the world.
.
The foe long since in silence slept;
.
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
.
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
.
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.
.
On this green bank, by this soft stream,
.
We set to-day a votive stone;
.
That memory may their deed redeem,
.
When, like our sires, are sons are gone.
.
Spirit, that made those heroes dare
.
To die and leave their children free,
.
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
.
The shaft we raise to them and thee.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

The unanimous Declaration of the Employee's

The Declaration of Employee’s Independence

In The People’s CONGRESS, April 20, 2006
The unanimous Declaration of the Employee’s in the United States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the employment bands 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 Employer/Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Employment/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 Employers/Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly
all experience hath shewn, 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 Employers/Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-Such has been the patient sufferance of these Employee’s; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their
former Systems of Employment/Government. The history of the present Employer’s of Great Greed is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these Employee’s. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

They have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the employee’s good. They have forbidden their Minions/Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till their Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, they have utterly neglected to attend to them. They have refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of employee’s, unless those employee’s would relinquish the right of Self-Defense in the Work place, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

They have called together employee’s at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public safety, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with their measures.

They have dissolved Employee’s Rights repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness their invasions on the rights of the employee. They have refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be hired; whereby the Employment powers, always capable of Annihilation, have turned on the People at large for their exercise; the Employee’s remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

They have endeavoured to prevent the employee’s of these work places; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Natural exercise of their Right; refusing to pass others to encourage their Right hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Rights. They have obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing their Assent to Laws for establishing Second Amendment powers.

They have made Judges dependent on their Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. They have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Bosses to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

They have kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Dictates without the Consent of the employee's. They have affected to render the Supervisors independent of and superior to the Moral power.

They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving their Assent to their Acts of pretended Regulation:

For Quartering large bodies of illegal aliens among us:
For protecting them, by a mock INS Card, from punishment for any Work which they should commit rather than the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Right with all parts of the work place:
For imposing Overtime on us without our time and a half pay: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Breaks on a Timely basis:

For transporting our manufacturing beyond Seas to make use of cheap labor sources

For opening the borders of America to a neighbouring country, 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 onto these Employee's:

For taking away our Right, abolishing our most valuable Overtime, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Employment:

For suspending our own Insurance, and declaring themselves invested with power to mandate to us in all cases whatsoever. They have abdicated Lunch hour here, by declaring us out of our work area and waging War against restroom use. They have plundered our benefits, ravaged our breaks, burnt us out, and destroyed the private lives of our people. They are at this time transporting large Amounts of illegal aliens to compleat the works we worked to death on, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized company.

They have constrained our fellow employee's to be taken Captive due to high taxes to bear even more taxes to their Country, to become the burden of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. They have excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and have endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Illegal Alien’s, whose known rule of workfare, is an 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 Employer whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the employer of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Employer brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their Supervisors to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our employment and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, 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 Employee’s in the united States of America, in General Distress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good Employee’s of these Companies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Employee’s are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent Employee’s; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the Employer’s Whim, and that all political connection between them and the Employee’s, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent Employee’s, they have full Power to their Second Amendment Right, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent Employee’s 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 Pensions and our sacred Retirement.

All tyrants reach a miserable end...

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth?...
...If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"
- Samuel Adams


United States War Casualties


01. WAR NUMBER.....SERVING...WOUNDED...DEATHS
02. Revolutionary........217,000.........6,188........4,435
03. War of 1812..........286,730.........4,505........2,260
04. Mexican War..........78,718..........4,152........1,733
05. Civil War ..........3,213,363..... 354,805.....191,963
06. Spanish American ..306,760..........1,662..........385
07. World War I........4,734,991.....204,002.......53,402
08. World War II......16,112,566.....671,846......291,557
09. Korean Conflict....5,720,000.....103,284........33,741
10. Vietnam Conflict...8,744,000.....153,303........47,424
11. Persian Gulf War...2,225,000..........467............147

American Military Casualties in Iraq as of April 18th, 2006
Deaths: 2,377
Wounded: 17,549 (9491 - Wounded and returned to Duty)

.

We Americans have expended much in blood, sweat and tears to obtain Freedom. This has been done for those in our own country as well as others around the world. Most of the conflict has been for just causes. Some has not. But, such is life.

Mr. Samuel Adams brings up some very good points in the statement at the top of the page. Such as; "Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?'” Indeed, what have our fellow countrymen and women fought for? There are many different reasons and causes, to be sure. Some for noble purposes, others out of necessity and some that are questionable. But, the main reason would surely have to be tyranny and to gain freedom from its evil grasp.

Tyranny can manifest itself in many different ways. When it emanates from government or religion, is when it’s most deadly. But a tyrant doesn’t necessarily have to be a public official or one behind the pulpit. No, for as John of Salisbury in his famous book 'Policraticus' indicated, "...many private men are tyrants." The term I personally prefer is, ‘petty tyrants’. A petty tyrant can be found behind desks in all types of businesses, big and small. They can be a landlord, cook/chef, waitress, cashier, and various other assorted and sundry professions. In my mind, anyone who restricts or prohibits the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution is a petty-tyrant.

The aspect of the growth and wide spread instances of petty-tyranny has been weighing more heavy on me of late. Is this what our forebears and present service people are fighting for? To give the opportunity, for all who desire, to become petty tyrants? As another quote from John of Salisbury points out "Everyone is tyrant who abuses any power over those subject to him which has been conceded from above." In the past, wars were fought to win Freedom and Liberty. And this was to secure and/or ensure that the basic rights of people were protected.

It is bad enough that we have a government that is steadily increasing in violating our rights. Government was originally formed to protect those very rights, by the way. The increase of these petty-tyrants is alarming. These people apparently believe that the position or wealth that they have been blessed with. Gives them authority to discard the Constitution and treat their fellow citizens as underlings. Or, even worse yet, exercise perverse power and control over others. This would naturally seem to be an extreme departure from the very founding principles of our once great nation.

The supposed recourse for this perversion was supposed to be our government. However, it appears government is more interested in joint encroachments with the private petty-tyrants. Provided of course, that those in the government get their piece of the pie. What both of these entities seem to have forgotten is that if it weren’t for the people they abuse, they wouldn’t have their positions or wealth. And as John of Salisbury also wrote, "All tyrants reach a miserable end." Small immediate comfort I know, but it does give us something to look forward to.

As one of our most intelligent former presidents noted,

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

  • Thomas Jefferson
You tell them, Tom!

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Have to admit, Alex had a point....

"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.
.
"But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.
.
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #84

Monday, April 17, 2006

Excerpts from Virginia Ratifying Convention...

Excerpts from the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Saturday, June 14, 1788:

"With respect to the other point....should be uniform throughout the continent. Some states might regulate on the principles of equality, and others might regulate them otherwise. This diversity would be obviously unjust....are regulated now unequally in some states....Should the people of any state by any means be deprived of the right of suffrage, it was judged proper that it should be remedied by the general government. It was found impossible to fix the time, place, and manner....in the Constitution. It was found necessary to leave the regulation of these, in the first place, to the state governments, as being best acquainted with the situation of the people, subject to the control of the general government, in order to enable it to produce uniformity, and prevent its own dissolution....And, considering the state governments and general government as distinct bodies, acting in different and independent capacities for the people, it was thought the particular regulations should be submitted to the former, and the general regulations to the latter. Were they exclusively under the control of the state governments, the general government might easily be dissolved. But if they be regulated properly by the state legislatures, the congressional control will very probably never be exercised. The power appears to me satisfactory, and as unlikely to be abused as any part of the Constitution."

"It was thought improper to leave it to the state legislatures, because it is improper that one government should be dependent on another; and the great inconveniences experienced under the old Confederation show the states would be operated upon by local considerations, as contradistinguished from general and national interests. Experience shows us that they have been governed by such heretofore, and reason instructs us that they would be influenced by them again. This theoretic inconvenience of leaving to Congress....which enabled the states to destroy the general government. There is no instance where this power has been abused. In America, legislative bodies have reduced their own wages lower, rather than augmented them. This is a power which cannot be abused without rousing universal attention and indignation. What would be the consequence of ....legislature raising their pay to four or five pounds each per day? The universal indignation of the people. Should the general Congress annex wages disproportionate to their service, or repugnant to the sense of the community, they would be universally execrated. The certainty of incurring the general detestation of the people will prevent abuse."

It was conceived that the great danger was in creating new offices, which would increase the burdens of the people; and not in a uniform admission of all meritorious characters.....There is no instance of any state constitution which goes as far as this. It was thought to be a mean between two extremes. It guards against abuse by taking away the inducement....and it gives them an opportunity of enjoying, in common with other citizens, any of the existing offices which they may be capable of executing. To have precluded them from this, would have been to exclude them from a common privilege to which every citizen is entitled, and to prevent those who had served their country with the greatest fidelity and ability from being on a par with their fellow-citizens. I think it as well guarded as reason requires; more so than the constitution of any other nation.  - James Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention, Sat., June 14, 1788

"Considering the corruption of human {372} nature, and the general tendency of mankind to promote their own interest, I think there is great danger. I am confirmed in my opinion from what I have seen already in Congress, and among other nations. I wish this part, therefore, to be amended, by prohibiting any senator or representative...." - Mr. Grayson, Virginia Ratifying Convention, Sat., June 14, 1788

Mr. MADISON supposed the reasons of this power to be so obvious that they would occur to most gentlemen. "If resistance should be made to the execution of the laws", he said, "it ought to be overcome. This could be done only in two ways — either by regular forces or by the people. By one or the other it must unquestionably be done. If insurrections should arise, or invasions should take place, the people ought unquestionably to be employed, to suppress and repel them, rather than a standing army. The best way to do these things was to put the militia on a good and sure footing, and enable the government to make use of their services when necessary." - James Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention, Sat., June 14, 1788

"I consider and fear the natural propensity of rulers to oppress the people. I wish only to prevent them from doing evil. By these amendments I would give necessary powers, but no unnecessary power. If the clause stands as it is now, it will take from the state legislatures what divine Providence has given to every individual — the means of self-defence. Unless it be moderated in some degree, it will ruin us, and introduce a standing army." - George Mason....And answered by James Madison:.... "Mr. Chairman, I most cordially agree, with the honorable member last up, that a standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen. It is a great recommendation for this system, that it provides against this evil more than any other system known to us, and, particularly, more than the old system of confederation. The most effectual way to guard against a standing army, is to render it unnecessary. The most effectual way to render it unnecessary, is to give the general government full power to call forth the militia, and exert the whole natural strength of the Union, when necessary. Thus you will furnish the people with sure and certain protection, without recurring to this evil; and the certainty of this protection from the whole will be a strong inducement to individual exertion. Does the organization of the government warrant a belief that this power will be abused? Can we believe that a government of a federal nature, consisting of many coĆ«qual sovereignties, and particularly having one branch chosen from the people, would drag the militia unnecessarily to an immense distance? This, sir, would be unworthy the most arbitrary despot. {382} They have no temptation whatever to abuse this power; such abuse could only answer the purpose of exciting the universal indignation of the people, and drawing on themselves the general hatred and detestation of their country." - (end of commentary by Madison, in response to George Mason).

"My honorable friend went on a supposition that the American rulers, like all others, will depart from their duty without bars and checks. No government can be safe without checks. Then he told us they had no temptation to violate their duty, and that it would be their interest to perform it. Does he think you are to trust men who cannot have separate interests from the people? It is a novelty in the political world (as great a novelty as the system itself) to find rulers without private interests, and views of personal emoluments, and ambition. His supposition, that they will not depart from their duty, as having no interest to do so, is no satisfactory answer to my mind. This is no check. The government may be most intolerable and destructive, if this be our only security.

My honorable friend attacked the honorable gentleman with universal principles — that, in all nations and ages, rulers have been actuated by motives of individual interest and private emoluments, and that in America it would be so also. I hope, before we part with this great bulwark, this noble palladium of safety, we shall have such checks interposed as will render us secure. The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. But then, he says that the power of arming and organizing the militia is concurrent, and to be equally exercised by the general and state governments. I am sure, and I trust in the candor of that gentleman, that he will recede from that {386} opinion, When his recollection will be called to the particular clause which relates to it.

As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the power of appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects. If the states have the right of arming them, &c., concurrently, Congress, has a concurrent power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry on into endless absurdity — that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them, &c., and that the State governments shall have exclusive power of appointing the officers, &c. Let me put it in another light.

May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one Who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without. limitation or bounds, how will your militia be afraid? You trust to chance; for sure I am that that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states Shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties; and when you speak of arming the militia by a {387} concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world, for trusting your safety implicitly to implication.

The argument of my honorable friend was, that rulers might tyrannize. The answer he received was, that they will not. In saying that they would not, he admitted they might. In this great, this essential part of the Constitution, if you are safe, it is not from the Constitution, but from the virtues of the men in government. If gentlemen are willing to trust themselves and posterity to so slender and improbable a chance, they have greater strength of nerves than I have.

The honorable gentleman, in endeavoring to answer the question why the militia were to be called forth to execute the laws, said that the civil power would probably do it. He is driven to say, that the civil power may do it instead of the militia. Sir, the military power ought not to interpose till the civil power refuse. If this be the spirit of your new Constitution, that the laws are to be enforced by military coercion, we may easily divine the happy consequences which will result from it. The civil power is not to be employed at all. If it be, show me it. I read inattentively, and could see nothing to warrant a belief that the civil power can be called for. I should be glad to see the power that authorizes Congress to do so. The sheriff will be aided by military force. The most wanton excesses may be committed under color of this; for every man in office, in the states, is to take an oath to support it in all its operations. The honorable gentleman said, in answer to the objection that the militia might be marched from New Hampshire to Georgia, that the members of the government would not attempt to excite the indignation of the people. Here, again, we have the general unsatisfactory answer, that they will be virtuous, and that there is no danger.

Will gentlemen be satisfied with an answer which admits of dangers and abuses if they be wicked? Let us put it of their power to do mischief. I am convinced, there is no safety in the paper on the table as it stands now. I am sorry to have an occasion to pass a eulogium on the British government, as gentlemen may object to it. But how natural it is, when comparing deformities to beauty, to be {388} struck with the superiority of the British government to that system! In England, self-love — self-interest — powerfully stimulates the executive magistrate to advance the prosperity of the nation. In the most distant part, he feels the loss of his subjects. He will see the great advantage of his posterity inseparable from the felicity of his people. Man is a fallen creature, a fallible being, and cannot be depended on without self-love. Your President will not have the same motives of self-love to impel him to favor your interests. His political character is but transient, and he will promote, as much as possible, his own private interests. He will conclude, the constant observation has been that he will abuse his power, and that it is expected. The king of England has a more permanent interest. His stock, his family, is to continue in possession of the same emolument. The more flourishing his nation, the more formidable and powerful is he. The sword and purse are not united, in that government, in the same hands, as in this system. Does not infinite security result from a separation?

But it is said that our Congress are more responsible than the British Parliament. It appears to me that there is no real, but there may be some specious responsibility. If Congress, in the execution of their unbounded powers, shall have done wrong, how will you come at them to punish them, if they are at the distance of five hundred miles? At such a great distance, they will evade responsibility altogether. If you have given up your militia, and. Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity. If Congress are to arm us exclusively, the man of New Hampshire may vote for or against it, as well as the Virginian. The great distance and difference between the two places render it possible that the people of that country can know or pursue what will promote our convenience. I therefore contend that, if, Congress do not arm the militia, we ought to provide for it ourselves." - Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, Sat., June 14, 1788




Sunday, April 16, 2006

RE: Gun advocates ignore lessons of Columbine...

The following is in response to the article on Columbian.com, Sunday, April 16, 2006.
As found on Keep and Bear Arms

Heidi Yewman,

It is not my intention to appear to be callous or hard-hearted. But, to put it as gently as possible, you need to get over it. Matters, such as the one on which you contend, always have various angles from which to view them.

Let us move the camera, if you will, and approach the subject from a different point of view. Suppose that any of the people at the school that day, had been armed as is/was constitutionally intended? There would have been a far better chance that Harris and Klebold would have been stopped, and quickly.

I contend that it is, in fact, you that needs to learn the true ‘lesson’ of Columbine.

How many people have died, because of being illegally disarmed or prevented from arming themselves for defense? As a direct result of the shrill cries of people like you who call for perverse governmental controls? Which cries, provides the plausible excuse for government to cross the bounds imposed on it to begin with. It is people like you who dismiss the facts and hold out supposition as truth. You only examine the surface, and neglect the deeper underlying scope of the subject.

One of the main reasons the Framers of the United States Constitution included the enumeration of the Second Amendment Right. Was specifically to enable citizens to deal with such situations as Columbine. And, even more importantly, to be able to ward off a government that has become corrupted and is usurping its authority. For you see, the Founders of our country had directly experienced the tyranny from a corrupt government. And they were keenly aware that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It was the desire of the Framers to ensure that future generations would be able to meet ANY threat to their Freedom and Liberty. From whatever source it may arise!

To illustrate;

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries

It is indisputable fact that, far more people have died at the hands of corrupt governments, than by incidents such as Columbine. Estimates of the total are as high as 170 million, in the last century alone.

The contention, such as that offered by people such as Heidi, are in fact much more of a danger than Harris and Klebold. That type of supposition will be far more deadly than either of them ever could have possibly imagined. Would highly advise that you consider these type matters in a more in depth fashion. For such reasoning, can be a grave error that can lead to very deadly consequences.

Disdainfully,

E. David Quammen
GunShowOnTheNet.com

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Wal-Mart? No, thanks anyways....

.
Am a firm believer in business and making an honest dollar. Think it is good if an individual or company is successful in their efforts. And this is well within the intentions of the Founders of our country. This is all predicated of course, on the notion that the individual or company is doing it ethically and rightfully.And far more so, if they use the Principles of Freedom and Liberty in their pursuit of profitable Free Enterprise.
.
It is my belief, that Wal-Mart exhibits no sound morals in it's pursuit of the almighty dollar. Which is exceedingly despicable when considered in the light that they started in the heartland of America. They have little to no regard that slave labor is used to make the majority of the products they sell.
.
And now Wal-Mart is announcing it wil not longer sell firearms in about 1000 of it's stores, according to an AP article. Effectively dismissing a crucially important aspect of American foundation principles. All the while Wal-Mart clearly uplifts, supports and helps to promote communist ideals! It is very clear just what is of paramount importance to Wal-Mart. And it has NOTHING to do with true American ideals.
.
Even more despicable, is that they acquiesced to the whining of ilk such as Chuck 'Usurpin' Schumer and the wicked witch of the west Diane Underminin' Feinstein. This according to Gun Control Kills in an article posted 4/15/2006. That these traitors keep getting elected into office is incomprehensible. They and similar unprincipled politicians are what is destroying our country from within.They seem more at ease using the principles of communism and socialism. Than the intended Constitutional Republican Principles, which are the true Foundation of our country.
.
This comes as no surprise really. Especially, when one takes into consideration Hitlery's announcement of jumping back on the Usurpation Train. And, that Bill and Hitlery were very helpful to Wal-Mart in the early formative days. But that is a whole different story in and of itself. It is an interesting coincidence that these two announcements come so close to each other. Point to ponder on....
.
Right now we need to concentrate on getting this perverse behemoth shut down. Wal-Mart does little to no good for our economy. In fact the trade deficit with China, as a direct result of Wal-Mart's Avarice. Has placed our country in a very precarious position. Now, to be fair, (if that is indeed the proper word to use), Wal-Mart isn't the only unprincipled business doing huge amounts of trade with the communists. No, unfortunately, there are quite a few more that have left off using true American principles in their practices.
.
We need to stop these businesses and soon. They are getting rich off of slavery, as well as the destruction of our country. By spending any of our own money with them, we are directly assisting in our own demise. We need a return to a domestically self-sustaining economy. One in which we can return to being the envy of the rest of the world.

Governed by Greed and Selfishness...

Governed by Greed and Selfishness...

It would seem wise, when making any contention such as that offered in the title, to establish a basis. So, with that in mind, I respectfully submit the following:

First, it is submitted that the whole statement of purpose for the United States government can be found in the preamble to the Constitution:

"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."

Secondly, Instead of offering a general elaboration, in order to prove the contention. Let's deconstruct the paragraph of the preamble, and then reconstruct it piece by piece:

Thirdly, in order to avoid any misconstruction, the Merriam-Webster dictionary is employed. That is Webster as in Noah Webster, the one considered by many, as an American hero in our early history.
The preamble dissected:

'We the People of the United States'; This one is somewhat self-explanatory, isn't it? In fact, it can reasonably be stated that 'we the people', is inclusive of all, right? Applying to EVERY citizen in the U.S. And not just a certain select few.

'in Order to form a more perfect Union'; Inarguably, a declaration indicative of the ideal of unity. With perfection being the desired goal of the Framers.

‘establish Justice’;

establish, es·tab·lish: 1 : to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement. 3 a : to make firm or stable b : to introduce and cause to grow and multiply. 4 a : to bring into existence. 6 : to make (a church) a national or state institution. 7 : to put beyond doubt : PROVE.

Justice, jus·tice: 1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b : JUDGE c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity.2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS c : the quality of conforming to law.3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : CORRECTNESS.

Interesting, indeed. Especially, the words permanently, firm and stable in reference to establish. And even more so, by the use of the word impartial in the definition of the word justice. It reminded me of a statement made by the man called the Father of the American Revolution’ Samuel Adams;

"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, [418] as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.” - The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772

Now, just what do you suppose Samuel meant by that? He was not writing about a select class of citizens, obviously. For he specifically used the term all men are clearly entitled’. Which directly supports the position of equality for every citizen.

‘insure domestic Tranquility’;

Another statement that seems self-explanatory. Domestic would indicate within the borders of our country. And, what we all wouldn’t give for a little Tranquility! (And not the Tranquility induced by the ingestion of mood or mind-altering substances. At least, it doesn’t seem reasonable to assume that is what the Framers intentions were for! And, based upon their knowledge of history, (as indicated in the Federalist Papers), they obviously were aware of drugs and most certainly alcohol).

‘provide for the common defence’;

Fully explained in the body of the Constitution – Article I, Section 8.

‘promote the general Welfare’;

Ding, ding, ding! There it is folks. We have a winner! There can be NO mistaking the meaning of those words. The Framers were not talking about private, or corporal, or even major, no! They were taking it right to the top – the general! Let’s see how Mr. Webster defines general;

general, gen·er·al: 1 : involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole2 : involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group <the general equation of a straight line>3 : not confined by specialization or careful limitation4 : belonging to the common nature of a group of like individuals : GENERIC5 a : applicable to or characteristic of the majority of individuals involved : PREVALENT b : concerned or dealing with universal rather than particular aspects.

Interesting, isn’t it? When is the last time you felt that your welfare was promoted? That was the whole reasoning for basing our form of government upon Republican Principles. The intention for this being that every citizen is to receive equitable treatment. And, that the will or desires of a few, or, the majority, could not outweigh the welfare of the general. Oh, and it gets so much better….

‘and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity’;

And here, my fellow Americans is the real meat and potatoes! The Framers were quite clearly not selfish, greedy individuals. They had risked all in breaking away from the tyranny of the crown;

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.” Declaration of Independence

And the above instance was not the first time they had made a Declaration of their intentions:

If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason, to believe, that the Divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the Inhabitants of these Colonies might at least require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body. But a reverence for our great Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The legislature of Great Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power, not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom, and desperate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these Colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from Reason to Arms. - Yet, however blinded that assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to slight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound, by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause.”



Striking resemblance to our present day situation, yes? Is it not strange how history repeats itself? One would think that the supposed ‘enlightened ones’ of today would be aware of these historical facts. In addition, that they would be cognizant of the underlying causes of discontent within a society. Find it very peculiar that a country originally based upon the Principles of Freedom and Liberty. Would seek a return to a form of governmental operation that is so clearly subversive of those very Principles on which it was founded. Perplexing. But, I ramble. Let us continue on unto the last:

‘do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America’;

The word that jumped out at me, so to speak, is ‘ordain’. Causes one to contemplate as to the reason(s) why the Framers would use that word. It thusly would behoove us to consult with Mr. Webster once again;

ordain, or·dain; 1 : to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority.2 a : to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law : ENACT b : DESTINE, FOREORDAIN.

Wow! Eye opening, isn’t it? Especially, when one takes into consideration the level of education that many of the Framers possessed. In other words, they had crystal clear understanding of the meaning of the words they employed. Now, they used the word ‘ordain’ as well as ‘establish’. Why would they use ‘ordain’? Unless of course, they meant to signify the importance of an additional intention?

In closing, a few words from Mr. James Madison concerning the subject contended;

"The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes....These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone...Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46

In any event, the above points are valid ones on which to ponder….