McCain's Bumbling Blunders

While opening his mouth in anger without any critical thinking or forethought in an attempt to deride Sen Rand Paul's filibuster, Sen John McCain claimed Paul's actions were not only silly and worthless, but harmful to the preservation of the Senate's filibuster rules.  However, in his emotional ferver, McCain actually unwittingly acknowledged Paul's performance was successful by admitting Congressional failures over the last 12 years.

Let's take a closer look, shall we?

Well, Mr President, I watched some of that quote debate unquote yesterday.  I saw colleagues of mine who know better come to the floor and voice this same concern, which is totally unfounded.  I must say that the use of Jane Fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me.  And I must say that she is not my favorite American, but I also believe as odious as it was, Ms Fonda acted within her Constitutional rights.

Oh really?  She was cavorting with the enemy, John.  She wasn't just holding a sign in a protest exercising her right to speak her mind, but she was there on the battlefield, even sitting on active enemy ADA making believe she was shooting down our pilots, providing them specific aid in the form of propaganda photo ops to demoralize our troops.  North Vietnam was a country, a nation state that we were in open hostilities with at the time.  Within her Constitutional rights?  Are you mad?  And what if she did what she did with al Qaeda instead of the North Vietnamese...?  Would that be similarly within her Constitutional rights?  Funny, but today, that would bring a drone attack raining down on her head.

You know you wanted to kill her, John.  Deep down where your heart used to be, you wanted to see her burn in napalm.  But we all know to say so isn't conducive to continuing a Senate career which is well past its prime.

There is no such thing as a war against terrorism.  Terrorism is a tactic.  You declare war on countries or other nation/states that support terrorists, just like the war against the Taliban and their control over Afghanistan for refusing to comply with an ultimatum to turn over bin Laden. 

There is no world-wide battlefield. 

You went to war with the Taliban and drove them out of power and bin Laden out of Afghanistan.  You drove bin Laden into Pakistan.  But you would not, could not declare war on Pakistan, could you?  Oh, you sure wanted to.  You know you did, but you see, they have THE bomb.  Is it any wonder that Iran might like to have one with all the posturing you keep doing to attack them? 

The perception of a war against terrorism is no different than the war on tobacco, the war on drugs, the war on illiteracy, the war on... whatever you politicians want to declare a fictitious war on, it's only to further your agenda to exert control over the populace and whittle away citizens' rights.

And not only did he deride Sen Paul, but all those others like Sen Mitch McConnell who "know better".  Pffft.

He drones on...

And to somehow say anyone who disagrees with American policy and even may demonstrate against it is somehow a member of an organization who makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false.  It is simply false! 

And how do we know that?  Al Awlaki was not part of al Qaeda, at least not until you pushed him.  After 9/11, he was preaching that terrorism was wrong and the attack on the WTC and Pentagon were wrong and that Americans should NOT be targeted by Muslims.  And what about his son?  All we know about his assassination is a snide remark by the WH press secretary, Robert Gibbs, suggesting that he "should have a far more responsible father." 

Sen McCain certainly has a lot of loiter time and more ammunition to expend.  And here is where it gets good.  As you will see in his own words, Sen McCain ADMITS Congressional failure to address EXACTLY what Sen Paul was, IMHO, actually trying to get them to address by asking President Obama a simple, limited scope question. 

Now, Mr President, I believe we need to visit this whole issue of the use of drones; who uses them; whether the CIA should become they're own Air Force; what the oversight is; what the legal and political foundations for this kind of conflict needs to be reviewed.  And the foundations rest mostly on laws designed for another task, that government lawyers have interpreted without public scrutiny to meet new challenges outside the surveillance context.   

Congress, as a body, has not debated the means or ends of secret warfare.  Because secret surveillance and targeted strikes rather than US military detention are central to the new warfare.  We need they know viable plaintiffs to test the government's authorities in court.   

In short, executive branch decisions since 2001 have led the nation to a new type of war against new enemies on a new battlefield without enough focused national debate, deliberate Congressional approval, or real judiciary review.  We probably need a new framework statute akin to the National Security Act of 1947 or the series of intelligent reforms made after Watergate or even the 2001 Authorization of Force to describe the... to define the scope of the new war, the authorities and limitations on presidential power, and forms of review of the president's actions. 

That's exactly what Rand Paul wanted, for you to admit your failures and you fell right into the trap as many soldiers did into North Vietnamese punji stick pits.  It had nothing to do with drones.  The kill list could be accomplished with guns, knives, piano wire, poison, sticks, or whatever... 

And no, John.  Warfare hasn't changed.  Terrorism hasn't changed.  No matter how you try to mold and transmogrify them into something new to suit your delusions of how to best to wield such deadly power.

There is some more in there which he again derides Sen Paul, but let's cut to the chase of the REAL source of Sen McCain's ire...

I'd also like to add an additional note, Mr President.    About 42%, as I'm told, of the members of this Senate are here for six years or less.  Everytime a majority party is in power, they become frustrated with the exercise of the minority or their rights here in the Senate.  And back some years ago, there was gonna be...  we were gonna eliminate...  when Republicans this side of the aisle was in the majority, we were gonna eliminate the ability to call for 60 votes for judges.  We... uh... confirmation of judges.  We were able to put that aside. 

There was another effort, just at the beginning of this Senate to do away with 60 votes and back down to 51, which in my view would have destroyed the Senate.  A lot of us work...  A group of us worked very hard for a long time to come up with some compromises that would allow the Senate to move more rapidly, but at the same time..., and efficiently, but at the same time preserve the 60 vote majority requirement on some pieces of legislation.  What we saw yesterday is going to give ammunition to those critics who say that the rules of the Senate are being abused.  I hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle will take that into consideration. 

That's it.  A dozen years of Congress failing to do it's job to address the scope of presidential powers w/ respect to targeted killings along with the last five years of them failing to even produce a budget while starting off this new session with a full scale assault on our individual rights to bear arms to protect our lives, families, and property...  Is Mr McCain worried about any of that? 

Mr McCain is most worried that an upstart freshman actually had the gall to use the precious rules of the Senate to demand an answer from the President on how he percieves he can act in total absence of Congress DOING IT'S DAMN JOB.  And what do you do?  You come unglued.

Thank you, Sen McCain.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

What do NY's Smoking Ban and NY SAFE Act Have in Common?

Simply put, they are both egregious infringements on individual rights to own and use property as seen fit.

Smokers have lived with numerous assaults on their personal decisions for years, but the smoking ban rose to another level and attacked small business owners throughout the state effectively denying them use of their personal property, that they worked hard for and built, for a specific purpose as if they were nothing more than caretakers of public property.

This is certainly not a partisan party issue.  The final votes in the Assembly and Senate were greatly mixed showing both parties infiltrated with control freaks.

Democrats:    Assembly  84 yes - 11 no  ~  Senate  20 yes - 4 no
Republicans:  Assembly 13 yes - 33 no  ~  Senate  37 yes - 0 no

Assemblyman Daniel Hooker’s comments made on the floor of the Assembly during debate on the smoking ban, Wednesday, March 26th, 2003:

I am from a rural district as well, and while we don’t have any cities, we do have a lot of restaurants, taverns, and diners, and this bill will hurt their business. We also have a lot of VFW Posts, American Legion Posts, and Marine Corps League Posts. I can’t help but think of the irony of the situation where a soldier or Marine comes home from the war, goes into a local VFW for a beer and a cigarette, and the bartender says "I’m sorry, young man, while you were overseas fighting for freedom, your State Assembly was quietly legislating it away here at home."

However, Mr. Speaker, I am chiefly opposed to this bill because it presumes that people are incapable of thinking and acting for themselves without the government telling them what to do.

At present, people are free to choose to work in an environment that is smoke free or not. A lot of waitresses who smoke choose to work in a bar specifically because it is a smoke-friendly environment. This bill would limit that freedom.

I don’t smoke but believe that others should be free to smoke if they choose to.

I am not insensitive to the health hazards of smoking. My Dad smoked, and he died of lung cancer. Cause and effect? Probably, but he died a free man who made his own choices.

My general philosophy is that our government spends way too much time telling people what to do and this seems like a good example of that practice.

I am opposed. 

Even though I wasn't from his district, I had written Mr Hooker to thank him for his stand, and he replied with a hand-written and personally signed note providing me with the full text of his speech.  All I got back from my own two representatives were form letters praising the great courageous stand they took standing with the majority to figuratively lynch a minority constituency.

 

We don't want to merely die like Dan Hooker's dad as free men, we want to live our lives as free men, unmolested by tyranny.

 

Why am I writing about this long dead issue now?  Well, first of all, it's NOT dead, it was just a lost squirmish in the never-ending battle for liberty.  And when it was a raging battle, we were severely chastized during that crusade for even insinuating that this assault on individual property rights would snowball down the slippery slope.  Yet today, we have Mayor Bloomberg assaulting individual rights nearly every day with stop and frisk and even denying your right to choose how big of a soft drink you'd like to buy.  Bloomberg rules NYC with an iron fist, but his crusades, especially against the 2nd Amendment are affecting people outside his jurisdiction.  We also have Gov Cuomo, rushing through the ill-conceived NY SAFE Act to attack another group of citizens to deny them their 2nd Amendment rights to own certain property to defend themselves, their families, and their property.

 

The assaults won't ever end until enough people wake up to just say NO!  We must honor the Constitution's legal framework that was set up to defend individual rights against usurpations of the collective and the tyrannical majority.  And just saying no once or twice here or there isn't enough.  We must demand that all such laws be reviewed and those that infringe on individual liberty must be rescinded or repealed.  A single such law makes a precedent for others to follow.

 

There's a reason for the many levels of government and the central powers are enumerated and severely limited.  Even statewide laws should be extremely limited.  Where freedom of association comes in is at the local level.  Don't like the colors your neighbor may paint his house, then join a local homeowners association and dictate away to attract like-minded people to your neighborhood sort of like what's going on in Kiryas Joel.

 

I can go on and on comparing the smoking ban and the NY SAFE Act to a myriad of social issues pertaining to individual rights such as one with the Defense of Marriage Act and the individual right of a citizen to marry whomever he or she pleases that is essential to maintain your right of free association.

As I continually stress, if you petition the government to limit the rights of any other individual to do anything you personally dislike, you empower them to come after you to limit yours.  Think long and hard about it and please ~ Help stop the madness!

NY SAFE Act - A Crime in Itself

My letter to my county legislator requesting support in condemning this egregious act.

-----

Sir,

I'm writing to you, as the county legislator for the district in which I reside, to register my disapproval of the NY SAFE Act and request you please support a County resolution to condemn it.

With the fast and furious loss of so many of our rights as citizens of a free republic in the past decade under the guise of necessity in the war on terror that brought us the Patriot Act, NDAA, targeted assassinations, proliferation of swat team raids, stop and frisk, TSA gropings, and DHS immigration checkpoints and suspicionless searches miles inland from our physical borders, to mention just a few, our second amendment rights are the last defense that we can ill afford to lose. When is it going to stop?
 

The right to defend ourselves, our family, and our property is a natural right. The police forces cannot physically perform such a duty, for if it is even possible to contact them during a life-threatening situation, they often arrive well after the crime has been committed and the perpetrator long gone. Even if they could always arrive in time, the Supreme Court of the US has consistently ruled that police forces have no special duty to protect anyone but themselves. Mayor Bloomberg's own NYC lawyers are using such defense in a lawsuit by Joseph Lozito against the NYPD, where officers present and actively engaged in a citywide manhunt for the murderer Maksim Gelman allegedly hid behind a locked subway door to protect themselves and watched as Gelman attacked and seriously wounded Mr Lozito until after he had subdued the culprit himself.

http://gothamist.com/2013/01/27/city_argues_nypd_had_no_special_dut.php

I find it amazingly ironic that so many like Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg are mindlessly and emotionally engaged in trying to disarm American citizens and have succeeded here in NY in rushing through this horrendous act. Yet the NY State Constitution still clearly states "The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state." So our government servants expect us to be required to help defend the state and our country even after they've disarmed us from bearing any of the most effective self-defense tools, but police departments and officers they commission to enforce the laws that they've enacted have no legally binding duty to protect us citizens from criminals while we are taxed to pay for their services. That's insane.

It's even more disturbing in light of seeing Mayor Bloomberg's own security forces made up of NYPD officers follow a reporter who was armed with nothing more than a soda for simply asking the mayor a question and attempting to harrass him, demanding he show identification while acting well outside their jurisdiction .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCC-rEx81PE

Again, I request you please support condemning this egregious Act and help us keep our state and country free.

Thank you,

v/r

Frank Koza

State of the Union - Ideological Subversion Nearly Complete

President Obama's State of the Union (SOTU) address was business as usual.  More government proposed to fix what more government broke.  You just can't fix a problem with the same mindset that created it in the first place.  Seriously, I was hoping Obamacare would provide him with some free contraception to slow down his procreative abilities of spawning additional government programs, but alas...

Soviet KGB defector, Yuri Besmenov, already had a better grasp of today's SOTU nearly 30 years ago than the current sitting president.  Please watch his interview with with G. Edward Griffin from back in 1984 at the link below.  It will give you a much better idea of where we are today than any of the political posturing you've heard tonight from President Obama or any of the mainstream media analysis of what we saw.  It's like he predicted everything Obama was going to say.

Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press

In that interview, Besmenov described the process of ideological subversion, a simple legitimate and overt four step process consisting of: 1) Demoralization, 2) Destabilization, 3) Crisis, 4) Normalization.   Interestingly, Besmenov used the terms of social justice and equality to describe the mindset behind what he called the useful idiots so demoralized to hate the ideology of their nation.  For destabilization, the subverter works on the main essentials such as the economy, defense systems and foreign relations.  It's purpose is to change the perception of reality, which we witnessed in the SOTU.  Besmenov pretty much predicted 30 years ago that we would allow the schmuks to bring the country to crisis and promise the people all sorts of goodies in promise of a paradise on earth to destabilize the economy, eliminate the principles of free market competition (Obamacare and bailouts, as well as the decimation of small businesses like family farms) and to put a big brother government in DC with benevolent dictators like Mondale (now Obama) who will go to Moscow to kiss the bottoms of a new generation of Soviet assassins (Obama's new after-election flexibility whispered to Putin)... 

IMHO, we're well into the normalization phase with the Patriot Act, NDAA, Agenda 21, drone wars, targeted killings, checkpoints, swat raids, stop and frisk, the Fed destroying the value of our currency and many other freedom stealing actions coming at us with blinding speed or already now in standard operation across the US.  Once they succeed in disarming us, it's all over...

The only solution and hope is to educate ourselves and our children to better understand what is going on around us.  We're in a state of war and have been for a long time against enemies determined to destroy the remnants of what was the last free country on the face of the earth.

The interview is about an hour and a half.  Also a worthy read is Besemov's Love Letter to America.

Enjoy...  Good luck and God Bless...

Americans Under Attack by Own Government

Morningland Dairy was raided last month and 18 tons of cheese destroyed by bureaucrats and their minions "just following orders". 

This business is not a fly-by-night operation, but a family business that operated for over 30 years with no complaints lodged against them except by government regulation makers.

This is a crime.  And so many are happy when Obamacare will come between you and your doctor because it's "free".  One has to wonder how wonderful they'll think this free service is when doctors start collecting personal information and becoming government informants and ordering you how to live your life rather than giving you recommendations.  This is what happens when the government "health" industry comes between farmers and their customers. 

We're under attack.  Wake up.

(Updated below:  9 Feb 13):

Another video shows questions asked of representatives of the county sheriff's department. 

Now this guy doesn't know about gun confiscation during Katrina.  He also doesn't know about the government's refusal to allow the business owners here to have their cheese tested before issuing a confiscate and destroy order or about the government "health nazi's" attacks on raw milk producers and other small business owners just working hard trying to make an honest living across the nation.

They aren't all just jackbooted thugs.  Many of these guys in public offices are just uninformed people following orders thinking they're doing their jobs.  The answer is education and to get the information out there like Sheriff Mack is doing with the Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA).

This should go viral and hopefully honest, hard-working Americans will step up to demand that the government agencies responsible provide just compensation to what they stole from these family farmers.  Government bails out banks and corporations who get in trouble from their own incompetence and they bail out disaster victims such as those of hurricane Sandy who lived where government officials deemed it was safe for them to build, but destroy small family businesses like this example. 

Reach out, speak out, educate and overcome!

And to government officials, sheriffs, peace officers, and judges who may read this.  We are patriots who helped build this country and you work for us.  People like these farmers create wealth.   We are NOT your enemy.  Please, learn how to do your jobs and protect us from tyrannical bureaucrats.

(Update 2 - more links)

1) Interview of Joe and Denise Dixon, owners of Morningland Dairy
2) Family Farm Odered to Destroy 50,000 lbs of Cheese - 11 Oct 10
3) Morningland Dairy - The Final Solution - 18 Jan 13
4) Wisconsin Judge Rules Against Raw Milk Farmers - 23 Feb 13

The Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946

All this crap about gun control and useful idiots like Piers Morgan, who isn't even a real American, leading the Obama deception asking why do citizens need firearms like the AR-15.

How come we don't ever hear about the Battle of Athens which took place in 1946?  Returning WWII vets, some of the first Oathkeepers, took on corrupt local officials to keep local elections fair and honest after State and Federal authorities failed them.  Another account, with similar incidents in other areas, can be found here.

I just found out about it from theoldmarine1 with his posting of this video on youtube.

Keep the faith and hold on to your arms.

ARMAGEDDON - Mark Steyn

Mark Steyn gave a particularly insightful speech (links at bottom) about the decline of America as a world power in various concepts in his book, "After America, Get Ready for Armageddon", which drills down towards the roots of what we see going on today.  In it, he touches on subjects that fit neatly into the categories he has crafted into an acronym for Armageddon:

• A - Addiction
• R - Redistribution
• M - Monopoly
• A - Arteriosclerosis
• G - Global Retreat
• E - Educational Social Engineering
• D - Decay
• D - Disintegration
• O - Open Season
• N - Nuke's Away

In this speech, he talks about many things that I have been highlighting some examples here, but I still fail to capture the intrinsic interrelations as well as Mark has in this speech. 

Take a look, for it's well worth your time.  I'm not going to add anything here in this post, but if you see anything in his speech that warrants additional discussion based on what you know, feel free to leave a comment or two.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Say Goodbye to Liberty

Nice song.



 

 

I See Drones Fly, That We Don't Need in the Sky.

S.679, Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011

Paul Ryan recently voted along with 95 other House Republicans on July 31st to pass S.679, Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011.  Word on the street that this action was requested and approved by Romney.  So it's no surprise his newly picked running mate voted for it.  Speculation is that Romney picked Ryan to shore up his image with conservatives.  Funny thing is that other conservatives Romney could have picked like Marco Rubio voted against it.  Another interesting bit of information is The Daily Caller claims their sources told them, "that there is concern in the ranks among conservatives opposed to the legislation that House leaders will bring the legislation up for a voice vote to avoid putting members on the record."  Hmmmm....

In one fell swoop, this Congress has divested itself of yet another authority and simultaneously strengthened the power of the President by alleviating itself from the drudgery and grind of confirming numerous agency appointments for positions that many different Congresses involved in the formation of those agencies and positions thought were important enough to demand their attention.  They did this because they have so many more important things to do in their daily duties enumerated in Article 1, section 8 that they can't get it all done and are extremely tired at the end of the day, not to mention that it will sure cut into their fact-finding junket time.

Now some will argue that this is the greatest thing Congress has yet accomplished to alleviate the overworked Senate of exhausting minutia to concentrate on more important matters. Indeed, that's what the wording of the bill states that it's meant to accomplish.  

There's certainly nothing wrong with this bill's Constitutionality, for indeed, Article 2, section two states, "...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

If these positions are so unimportant, why can't the Senate just give them a quick thumbs up or down and move on?  If the positions are indeed that unimportant, why continue to have them to begin with?   Instead of delegating appointment with no need for Congressional confirmation, why not just do away with the positions and really streamline government, not to mention reduce expenditures of using taxpayer money to employ these unimportant people?

If they're so unimportant, then why bog down the President to make such appointments when the Constitution states they could vest appointment in the courts of law or heads of the departments where the positions exist as well?   Surely the President has more important things on his plate as well. 

No, there's a reason why they gave the President such unfettered authority rather than bumping it down to the department heads.  There's a reason why they were contemplating a voice vote to avoid record.  Perhaps we should consider ramifications of this in terms of similarities with the Enabling Act.

Last thought:  Slowly...  Slowly...

 

 

Update (23 Aug 12) - I've had a few remarks that I was being as disingenuous and deceitful as Harry Reid alleging Mitt Romney paid no income taxes for 10 years based on an anonymous phone call. 

 

I had seen the proof in a statement from a Representative, but was having such a hard time finding it when writing this because of the wonders that is known as facebook.  I still can't find it through my facebook account, but luckily it's available through a google search. 

 

In reponse to a query, Justin Amash (R-MI) replied:

 

Leadership informed GOP Reps that passage of the bill was a "Romney ask," so dozens of Reps flipped to "yes".
 

I've heard that this may effect several hundred appointments, but I'm too lazy atm to look it up.  This seems like nothing more than a huge giveaway to the President in providing him with many well-paying government jobs to favored donors to the campaign of whomever wins.  Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter.  Business as usual inside the beltway.

It will be interesting to see who fills these appointments after this coming election...

 

Social Contract

Very interesting discussion over at Tom Woods, "When Did I Sign This 'Social Contract'?"

More later.

Update (21 Aug 12) - My comment on that thread:

Tom, when you received what may be considered stolen goods in obtaining your property which was most likely unjustly expropriated from a number of others who held claim to it before you, you entered into the contract to protect your rights to that property.

NAP is simply a principle, not a contract. It may be a basis behind certain contracts, but no more or less so than a contract based on a principle of mutually assured destruction. It's merely mutually assured non-destruction. MAD vs MAN. :)

Libertarianism seems to fail to consider that rights are nothing more than a conceptual fiction. Nothing is inalienable, except through contract that all sides endeavor to uphold. Rights do not exist in nature, only constant struggle.

http://uncertainoutcomes.blogs...

Tax Primer

Ok, I've had it with reading all the Obamacare "mandate" discussions over whether it is effectively a tax or not.  People seem to want it both ways.  Conservatives first screaming it was a tax when enacted then lambasting Chief Justice Roberts for calling it one while they want it to be called an individual "mandate" to make it unconstitutional under the Commerce clause.  Liberals claiming it's not a tax, but reveling in the SCOTUS decision.  Well, you can't have it both ways, choosing whatever to fit your want.

First of all, they (the government) already can and do tax everything, to include non-activity. Think about this Obamacare “mandate” as you would in terms of a mortgage “deduction”. The mortgage interest deduction can also be called a "mandate".  What they are telling you is you must buy a dwelling ~and~ you must take out a mortgage to get a “deduction”.   Simply renting one or buying your house for cash and not being in debt isn’t good enough.   You must have a mortgage or you will pay a "penalty" by being taxed more, plain and simple. And the bigger the mortgage and the more debt it puts you into forcing you to pay more interest (that translates into more profits for the banks which is also taxed) the better will be your reduction in the tax “penalty” for not having a mortgage.  It's win-win for the banks which sell more mortgages and the government which collects more taxes (they only get 15% on your income, but 35% of corporate profits) and a huge loss for you being forced to go into debt to buy something you may not need.  All in all, it's simply designed to take more money from you.  I won't go into how corporations lower their tax exposure today, but be assured that it is a pyrrhic victory for the consumer who must pay the corporate tax, regardless.

So, do you think the banks helped create the mortgage interest deduction, just as the insurance industry helped create Obamacare?

What the Hell are Rights Anyway?

That's all we hear these days:  Rights, freedom of speech, right to life, right to bear arms, liberty, natural rights, religion, 4th amendment rights, etc.   My rights, your rights...  Rights. 

Imagine this… A right is the ultimate fiction, nothing more than an abstract idea propagated by men along with “the law” to control men and induce them to act in a certain way within a society. There are no rights in the natural world, only constant struggle. You are endowed by your creator or nature not with rights, but only your five senses and various characteristics or skills such as speed, agility, endurance, and intellect to assist you in that struggle.   Life exists only as long as you can successfully use those senses and apply those characteristics in struggle or join with others to avoid or ward off conflict with anything bigger and badder that has a compulsion or desire to deprive you of it.

The Constitution is nothing more than a pact between mere mortal men to collaborate in a group effort to protect each other’s lives, liberty and property from those forces, both foreign and domestic, wishing to deprive them.  It has been and always will be under attack and is only as good as our mutual continued support to engage in the struggle to defend it to preserve equality, justice, and fairness for all.

An intriging parallel can be drawn between the Battle at Kruger in the embedded video below and the concept of rights and the struggle of interactions between the federal and state governments and the people.  Watch it, think, and then let's discuss.

 



 

 

(Updates )

 

17 Mar 2013 - Adding this link The Right to Life - From the blog of Philip Schuyler.  Interesting thoughts worth a look.