Van Harvey

  • What if I told you, that guns aren’t the point of the 2nd Amendment? To Keep and Bear Arms Across Time – pt1

    What if I told you, that guns aren’t the point of the 2nd Amendment? Heads would be exploding in bi-partisan living color, right? Well, that’s what I’m saying: Guns aren’t the point of the 2nd Amendment (… 3… 2… 1…BOOM!). And while that will cause heads on both sides of the aisle to explode, they will do so for very different reasons. The Right side will explode, because they’d assume that such a statement intends to weaken, and/or limit our access to guns – which is the opposite meaning, purpose, and affect which that statement would have. The Left side (and not a few on ‘The Right’) – those who get the tactical point of their spin – will explode because they’d realize that such a statement, if widely understood and adopted, would not only lead to the loss of decades of their hard fought limitations upon arms, but would also explode their primary tool for making those restrictions: equating Arms, with Guns.

    You see, despite the fact that firearms are the most effective, efficient, practical means with which to keep and bear arms, they are, as that simple fact implies, not the actual point of the 2nd Amendment, but only one means of our carrying out what is protected by that amendment. Despite what often seems to be the best efforts of those on all sides, the 2nd Amendment is not primarily about gun rights – in fact there is no such thing as ‘gun rights‘. Nope. Not. Things, of course, do not have rights, but by claiming a right to things, it eventually eliminates all rights, because it means that someone, somewhere, is obligated to supply what others have claimed a right to, whether they want to, or not – that’s not how rights work! BTW, that’s the same strategy behind demands that ‘Healthcare’ be treated as a ‘Right’.

    What the 2nd Amendment is all about, is securing the right of each individual to be able to act in the defense of their community, persons, property and interests, by freely choosing the personal arms which in their judgment is best suited to that task. That’s possible, because the 2nd Amendment assures We The People, that the government will neither infringe upon those actions we deem necessary to take, nor will it make any law that would come between ourselves and those arms we may choose from in order to act.

    With that in mind, take note of the word ‘Arms’ in the language of the 2nd Amendment :

    ‘…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

    And no, the 2nd Amdt is not about ‘bearing arms against foreign militias

    If you keep in mind that this amendment was written during a time when ‘gentlemen’ still wore swords at times, and occasionally still used them, it becomes less surprising that the term refers to the general category of Arms, and that it was not, and is not, limited to only Firearms (or any particular quantity of them, for that matter). I’ve no idea why anyone should be surprised, in that the term Arms, predates the existence of firearms by many millennia, and examples are readily available from all quarters, existing and persisting across multiple nations and languages, from history and the birth pangs of Athenian democracy in 550 BC, when the radical democrat leader Pisistratus, forcibly disarmed the people ‘for their own good, to Rome in around 20 BC, and the first line of Virgil’s ‘Aenaid’,

    “I sing of arms and the man who of old from the coasts of Troy came…”

    , and we can trace a lengthy line for the general concept of ‘Arms’ ahead in time to England, before the English, spoke English. As James Wilson (a signer of the Declaration of Independence, member of the Constitutional Convention, one of the original members of the Supreme Court, and a significant legal theorist and a key founder of America’s system of jurisprudence) noted in his Lectures on Law, given a few short years after the Constitutional Convention which he played a large part in, the first ‘legal’ recognition of the vital concept of self defense not only predated our Constitution, but the English language, and even Norman England, reaching back into the the time of the Saxons,

    “…With regard to the first, it is the great natural law of self preservation, which, as we have seen, cannot be repealed, or superseded, or suspended by any human institution. This law, however, is expressly recognized in the constitution of Pennsylvania. “The right of the citizens to bear arms in the defence of themselves shall not be questioned.” This is one of our many renewals of the Saxon regulations. “They were bound,” says Mr. Selden, “to keep arms for the preservation of the kingdom, and of their own persons.”…”

    Keeping arms in general, for the preservation of life and community, was commonly understood to apply to any number of personally held or carried weapons, for thousands of years before firearms ever came to be. The first common usage in the English language, as early as the year 1400; was of Arms, or ‘to arm’, having the non-weapon-specific meaning of “provide oneself with weapons” in order to extend the reach and power of your bodily arms, which was exactly the meaning that would later be developed and clarified into the language of Individual Rights, which is how the 2nd Amendment uses the term, in keeping, and bearing, not firearms, but Arms.

    Importantly, the real heart of the 2nd Amendment is not weapons, but the right of self defense; or as Wilson more properly termed it, self preservation. That is the principle that the 2nd Amendment is safeguarding for us, and weapons are but the vital means to its ends, which can be seen to have been clearly understood in cases such as the Kentucky Supreme Court Case, Bliss v. Commonwealth (1820), which overturned a law against concealed weapons, as showing the broad understanding of what Arms referred to, and why,

    “…In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise….”

    , and again in Nunn vs. Georgia (1846) (as referenced in landmark SCOTUS case of D.C. v. Heller), that the arms which we could ‘keep and bear‘ were understood through their roots in the experiences of English history, to refer to far more than just firearms,

    “…”The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”…”[emphasis mine]

    So?
    Had it been the intention of the Americans of our Founder’s era, to limit our weaponry access to only firearms, they would have used the term Firearms (as they often did in other contexts), rather than the more general term ‘Arms‘. Arms refer to all manner of weapons available for use by an individual, whether clubs, bow & arrow, knives, swords, bayonets, or any of the various forms that arms have, and will, technologically evolve through across time, which an individual person might choose from to personally keep and bear, in order to extend the power of their body’s arms in their defense against threats to them, whether from their own govt gone rogue, or from the likes of mobs, or criminals.

    As long as we retain that concept’s original meaning, it will continue to benefit and apply to us, protecting our right to keep and bear the arms of our choosing, so that long after gunpowder has gone the way of stone axes, the choice of arms available to us will continue to be safeguarded from being bound by legal restrictions to any one particular passing – and soon obsolete – form of arms.

    If you don’t get what I mean, ask yourself if you’ve ever heard someone say ‘The 2nd Amdt was meant to apply to muskets, not AR-15s!‘. Or ‘The 2nd Amdt was meant to apply to militias, not civilians!‘ Yep That’s what I mean, which is at the heart of the “So?!” that we so desperately need to understand here.

    Willingly going along with the notion that arms, mean guns, doesn’t protect your right to guns, it instead enables the discussion of ‘which guns‘ are to be protected, and who will be permitted to keep them – and which will not. OTOH, adhering to the meaning of arms as being “…any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.”, and why, reminds us that the 2nd Amendment was made to render our govt powerless to restrict our keeping and bearing any personal arms that we might choose, for our individual and communal defense.

    Common Sense Limitations
    Protecting the individuals right of preserving and defending themselves (and by extension, the community), was so important to our Founder’s era, because they were well aware that most legislative references to arms, up to and including their time, were specifically made in order to legally disarm the public, as was done in this English decree from 1328,

    “…come before the King’s justices, or other of the King’s ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere, upon pain to forfeit their armour to the King, and their bodies to prison at the King’s pleasure…”

    As the concept of Individual Rights became better understood, particularly after England’s “Glorious Revolution”, government power, royal or otherwise, steadily began to become limited by the rights which the people were coming to be recognized to have… though, with some ‘common sense‘ limitations upon them, as with the English Bill of Rights, of 1689, which allowed,

    That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.

    As Blackstone explained, this wasn’t only about arms, or firearms, it was about the purpose and importance of the people having a right to them:

    “… having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression…”

    But as great a leap of progress as that was over that of earlier decrees, it didn’t require a great deal of thought to see that the ‘common sense‘ limitations which those protections retained (you know, keeping those Catholics, or Puritans, ‘sensibly’ disarmed), were too easily turned against one and all (hello Lexington and Concord!). We Americans rejected allowing such common sense limitations upon our right to keep and bear arms, keeping the 2nd Amendment worded as it still is, because we knew that all such good intentions had the effect of leaving unprotected, those who most needed their rights to be protected from those well intentioned sentiments which, in anxious times, drive public opinion and curry government favor, to the detriment of the individual, the minority, and by extension, to their collective liberty.

    We The People rejected such ‘common sense’ limitations because we understood that those rights are not themselves things, or the things we associate with them, but are our liberty to act for the betterment and preservation of our lives – and that to be able to continue to do so, they as citizens, needed their fellow citizens in government, to know that those outside of government were fully able to ‘keep them honest‘, should they ever be tempted to attempt limiting some people’s rights, ‘for their own good‘.

    And though that early understanding was still present as late as 1828, when Webster’s Dictionary defined ‘Arms’ as:

    “…To take arms is to arm for attack or defense….In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another….”

    , a shift in popular understanding was beginning to be felt, certainly by the 1830’s, as the newly fashionable German philosophies of the likes of Kant & Hegel, swept through our educational systems, and through its pupils, into society and our systems of government. Under that burgeoning pro-regressive leadership, that old ‘modern’, and ‘common sense‘ , pre-American, sort of talk began popping up again, expressing a growing desire to regress back away from the responsibilities of individual liberty, and towards more centrally consolidated powers. Despite the resistance shown to it in the previously cited cases of Bliss and Nunn, and well after the time that our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, debated, and ratified, judicial decisions began to reflect the rising ideology of pro-regressive Positivist Law, especially after the Civil War, which inclined to narrow and restrict the understood definitions of what rights, and arms, were.

    Given that, it wasn’t too long before Arms became accepted to mean what it is now defined as in Black’s Law Dictionary, that arms:,

    “…cannot be made to cover such weapons as dirks, daggers, slung-shots, sword- canes, brass knuckles, and bowie knives. These are not military arms…”[emphasis added]

    Swords, knives, and other forms of arms were still understood to be arms, of course… just not military arms. Sadly, for the integrity of the right of keeping and bearing arms, we didn’t have the equivalent of a National Rifle Association for Swords, or Bowie Knives, or any of the other forms which were no longer standard militarily sidearms, and so they were gradually separated in the public mind from the protections of the 2nd Amendment, enabling Arms to become identified with only firearms, rather than as a means to being armed – things, rather than concepts or actions.

    One perhaps not so obvious reason why this matters, is that whenever you allow a general, high level concept, especially one that is an important principle of law, to be taken to refer exclusively to a set of particular physical things, then the true meaning of that concept becomes lost, and if we fail to understand the danger in permitting our timeless rights to be tied down to the transitory particulars of things in time, be they quill pens, parchment, swords, or muskets, then our sacred rights are put on a ruinous path to submission and obsolescence.

    A prime example of just that process can be found in what is intended to be ‘accomplished’ through the most destructive of Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals‘, his lucky Rule #13:

    “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”

    There are few things more dangerous to a society of laws ( as I’ve touched on before), than permitting those higher abstractions, to be frozen to material objects, because it soon turns them into easy targets of cheap rhetorical tactics and demonstrations.

    Where this has effectively brought us to today, is far down the path where the Individual Right ‘to bear arms‘ which the 2nd Amendment is meant to protect and secure against government aggression, was first transformed into a permission to keep and bear one particular form of arms (those currently in military use), later was reduced to only one particular form of those arms, Firearms, and then only under certain ‘common sense‘ conditions, which eventually enabled great swaths of the We The People of today to confuse those dimly remembered ‘rights’, with the sensationalized criminal abuses of our persons and rights, that are hyped as having been committed with the likes of a .38 Special, or an AR-15.

    At the same time, another handy side effect of this verbal ju-jitsu, is that it elevates that particular material thing that you’re claiming to have a right to, over and above the original right (that of self defense, self preservation) itself (in many cities and states today, you can be punished for exercising your right of self defense, or even be effectively denied that right, because of the particular firearm you use to accomplish that), enabling all of our rights to be that much easier to be rhetorically, and politically, targeted, and diminished, a path which will, if we continue to follow it to the end, will see those rights being struck from the books.

    Even if we somehow manage to adopt what some states already have, the so-called ‘Constitutional Carry’ permit, it will almost certainly be understood to refer to only a particular form of arms, rather than to the Individual Right to be armed – and how will Tazers, or someday, Lazers, fit into that ‘right’, and who will say so? A Right that has been transformed by its being successfully attached to a thing, becomes a thing that can be restricted, regulated, and eventually retired.

    In case you haven’t noticed, that same process is being applied to our other individual rights, such as through a ‘right to health insurance’, and now to the Freedom of Speech, which is being reduced to the anti-concept of ‘hate speech’ (meaning conservative speech), effectively transforming the action of speaking, into the ‘things’ being spoken, which are then easily polarized as something which we all must be protected from, by those in power over us, and will eventually be eliminated. Alinsky’s Lucky #13, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it“, strikes again.

    That ‘modern’ de-conceptualized, pro-regressive reading of the protections which the Bill of Rights in general, and the 2nd Amendment in particular, is meant to secure for us, would not have been taken seriously in the era that the 2nd Amendment was formulated, proposed, and ratified by We The People, in part because they understood that our individual rights are inherent in our nature as human beings, and not conveniences of time and place. Our Individual Rights are timeless, because they are derived not from particulars of time and place, but from the nature of being human, and as such they extend across all time (even in those times and places where they go unacknowledged), enabling us to both take those actions necessary for living as a human being, and to be free from the actions of those who’d take unwarranted actions against us.

    Because that is true, I, you, and every American (or otherwise), has a natural right to defend their lives as best they can, with whatever personal arms they deem most appropriate, be that a sword or a .44 Magnum, and it is because America alone has that right safeguarded, our govt – on paper, if no longer in our minds – is powerless to infringe upon our ability to secure the arms of our choice – be they swords, crossbows, guns, or whatever exotic weaponry that tomorrow may bring.

    But because that truth is no longer widely understood, we are continually beset with frightened and angry questions of ‘What can be done?! We must do something!‘, about the sorry state of our affairs, where Individual Rights are trampled, and empty platitudes are praised. Still, it is true that something must be done, but what can, or should, be done, is a question that depends a great deal upon what it is that you mean by ‘can’ and by ‘done’ – which we’ll get into in the next post.

  • The Constitution at 230 years old – for Patriots, Protesters, and even Rioters

    [Re-posting this date adjusted post from last year, on what is now the 230th anniversary of our Constitution, because it asks those few questions that are really worth asking ourselves today. And especially after two days of rioting in St.Louis, supposedly over ‘Justice!‘, it’s worth asking yourself today, 

    • What do you think of the Constitution, and why do you think that? 

    Not which favorite catch phrases come so readily to mind, or repeating what someone else wrote, or said, but what do You think, and why do you think it? You might even find a few points that you’ve never thought upon for yourself. 

    Hard to imagine a better activity for the day.]

    Today marks the completion of what both Patriot and Protester, knowingly or not, are unified in referencing. What was signed as completed upon this day, two hundred and thirty years ago, September 17th, 1787, by thirty-nine of the fifty-five Framers, was the Constitution of the United States of America, and whether you stand in respect for, or disrespectfully turn away from, the Flag, the National Anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance, you do so in reference to that document which is the oldest existing instrument of its kind, still in operation.

    Why?

    Is it simply a list of rules for governing by? Is it nothing more than a favorite fossil of ‘white people‘? A document of oppression? Frederick Douglass once thought so, but because he was a thinker in order to understand what was true, he didn’t stop with answers that were given him by others, but continued on thinking upon the matter, and discovered the Truth which such vile falsehoods seek to smother and erase.

    But today I’m really not much concerned with your answers to those ‘points’, but am only interested in whether or not you are familiar with the ideas, principles and purposes which animated the writing of it – are you? And if not… what worth can your opinion – pro or con – have for me, or for anyone else?

    Whether you mouth its praises, or make showy protests against it, without understanding what it is you are referencing – your praises and protestations fail to even rise to the level of being wrong, they are but verbal dust to be brushed away, meaningless and of no consequence. But if you are one of that thoughtless many, you may take comfort in the knowledge that you are in the happy company of millions of such Pavlovian ‘Conservatives’, Pro-Regressive Leftists and Libertarians, for whom the United States Constitution is little more than a paper bell which they bark at.

    But for those of you who do see it, not as a mere object of ink upon paper, for those of you who don’t insult the memory of they who strove to produce it as having been anything other than men of flesh and blood, for you who understand that it was written so as to give physical form to, and to best enable, the implementation of some of the greatest political ideas of Western Civilization –

    • that Individual Rights result from the nature of being human(“…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…“),
    • that men who understand that are capable of self governance,
    • that well ordered argument can lead to a self-correcting means of governance,
    • that such a system, established by such a people, can enable lives lived in liberty while in society with others, so long as the beast of Power is bound down and limited by laws whose purpose is to uphold and defend the Individual Rights of every person

    , and that for such a people, intellectually armed through a document such as this, Liberty is possible.

    But it is only possible for those who understand that.

    For those intemperate folk who simply wish to sing the praises of, or rain curses down upon, that which they know little or nothing of, so that they can ‘do what they will‘, as they want, because they desire to… well for them, as Edmund Burke said in the face of the debut of Fascism:

    “It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

    Whether you are ‘for or against it‘, especially on this day, in our day, you’d be wise to consider what would happen if we should lose the last vestiges of it, and those protections it uniquely extends to both sides.

    For those of you who already do, or who are at least willing to make the effort to, understand those ideas which animated the framing of this document, those of you who understand that such principles and ideas as these cannot be owned by any race or culture, but can only be discovered by some for the benefit of all, then by virtue of that understanding, you and I are unified through these thoughts which were so well formed, written down, and ‘completed’ (and not to forget the first debate on amending its completion), on ‘the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven’.

    One final point, whether you are an old hand with, or relatively new to, this document and its ideas, I take it as an obvious point that your reading of it can be greatly improved and informed by those arguments for, and against it, that were in the minds of those who debated the writing and ratifying of it. One of the best tools I’ve ever found for considering and reflecting upon the whole or particular parts of the Constitution, is the University of Chicago’s site “The Founders Constitution“. Scroll down on the contents page and you’ll find that it goes through the Constitution clause by clause, and that each is supplied with a list of links to those relevant portions of not only the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, but to documents which the Founders had in mind when writing the Constitution, to what the Anti-Federalists objected to (this is particularly helpful in understanding the arguments for the Constitution which the Federalist Papers make), as well as early Supreme Court opinions and judgments that were relevant to that clause being acted upon, as well as the commentaries by early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (which are fantastic).

    Without further ado:

    Constitution of the United States and the First Twelve Amendments 1787–1804

    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.

    Article. I.

    Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

    Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

    No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

    When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

    The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
    Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

    No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

    The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

    The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    Section 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
    The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

    Section 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

    Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

    Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

    Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

    Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

    No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

    Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

    Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representativesand the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return in which Case it shall not be a Law.

    Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

    Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    To promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and properfor carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

    No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

    No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerceor Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

    No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

    Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairingthe Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    Article. II.

    Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected as follows

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

    The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

    The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

    The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; 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.

    The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

    Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and inCase of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

    Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Article. III.

    Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

    Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    Article. IV.
    Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

    No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

    Section 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

    The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

    Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

    Article. V.

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it’s equal Suffrage in the Senate.


    Article. VI.

    All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United Stateswhich shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

    Article. VII.

    The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

    The Word, “the,” being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, The Word “Thirty” being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words “is tried” being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word “the” being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page. Attest William Jackson Secretary

    done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

    Go: Washington–Presidt. and deputy from Virginia

    New Hampshire { John Langdon
    Nicholas Gilman
    }
    Massachusetts { Nathaniel Gorham
    Rufus King
    Connecticut { Wm. Saml. Johnson
    Roger Sherman
    New York Alexander Hamilton
    New Jersey { Wil: Livingston
    David Brearley.
    Wm. Paterson.
    Jona: Dayton
    Pensylvania { B Franklin
    Thomas Mifflin
    Robt Morris
    Geo. Clymer
    Thos. FitzSimons
    Jared Ingersoll
    James Wilson
    Gouv Morris
    Delaware { Geo: Read
    Gunning Bedford jun
    John Dickinson
    Richard Bassett
    Jaco: Broom
    Maryland { James McHenry
    Dan of St Thos. Jenifer
    Danl Carroll
    Virginia { John Blair–
    James Madison Jr.
    North Carolina { Wm. Blount
    Richd. Dobbs Spaight.
    Hu Williamson
    South Carolina { J. Rutledge
    Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
    Charles Pinckney
    Pierce Butler.
    Georgia { William Few
    Abr Baldwin
    Amendments to the Constitution
    Preamble to the first ten Amendments:

    Congress of the United States; Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789. 
    The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;–

    Article I – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Article II – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Article III – No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Article IV – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Article V – No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Article VI – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Article VII – In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Article VIII – Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Article IX – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Article X – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


    The Founders’ Constitution
    Volume 1, Chapter 1, Document 9

    The University of Chicago Press
    Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States. Edited by Charles C. Tansill. 69th Cong., 1st sess. House Doc. No. 398. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1927.

  • Justice follows from a judicial process, not a mob’s demands.

    Quick note regarding the verdict in the latest “Trial of the Day“: Unless you can point to credible reasons to suspect that established procedures weren’t followed, or that there was improper influence involved, jury tampering, bribery, etc, I’m highly unlikely to be following or to give a rip about the “Trial of the Day” that you are so worked up about.

    St. Louis Native @DLoesch on Protesters: ‘Look What They Do to My City’ https://t.co/s5OYOZtR7S

    — Fox News (@FoxNews) September 16, 2017

    We have a judicial system with established procedures that are designed to test, admit and present evidence and arguments for, and against, the person or persons charged with a crime, and assuming that system was followed and applied, what results from that, is what, in our judicial system, constitutes a ‘fair trial‘.

    In our system of justice, the person or persons charged, are considered innocent, in regards to the Law, until proven guilty. That means, that the best possible methods of rendering a Just decision by those who were not there, has been followed, and we cannot justly do any better.

    If you want to assert that you didn’t like the verdict, and you want to demand that your biased preferences should take precedence over a system such as ours, then you are advocating for the passion driven, unreasoning, use of force, to appease the sensibilities of the aggrieved and the angry. There is no possibility of Justice in such a system as that, and that approach is nothing but a leap backwards in time, to lynch mobs and barbarity.

    If you view a single snippet of a statement, and based upon that alone, judge that “This is Not Justice!“, then what you are demanding, is not justice, but an end to the possibility of Justice, you are advocating savagery, and in that respect: you disgust me.

    Period.

    As for those taking their unreasoning angst to the streets to forcibly control the lives of others, surrounding cars and their terrified occupants in traffic, stopping highways, blocking the entrances to a major hospital (absolutely jeopardizing lives) and or to intentionally do actual violence to them, I’ll leave you with John Adams’ comments on how to handle rioters:

    “…I will not at present, look for any more authorities in the point of self-defence; you will be able to judge from these, how far the law goes, in justifying or excusing any person in defence of himself, or taking away the life of another who threatens him, in life or limb; the next point is this, That in case of an unlawful assembly, all and every one of the assembly is guilty of all and every unlawful act, committed by any one of that assembly, in prosecution of the unlawful design they set out upon.

    Rules of law should be universally known, what ever effect they may have on politics; they are rules of common law, the law of the land, and it is certainly true, that where ever there is an unlawful assembly, let it consist of many persons or a few, everyman in it is guilty of every unlawful act committed by any one of the whole party, be they more or be they less, in pursuance of their unlawful design. This is the policy of the law: to discourage and prevent riots, insurrections, turbulence and tumults….”

    We can have a Judicial System that seeks justice through reasonable laws, known and fixed methods of justice, or we can permit the mood of the moment to normalize exceptions to our laws whenever popular angst demands it – but we can’t have both.

    Protesters attack police car in St Louis #foxnews pic.twitter.com/Qbn63DuyYE

    — Will Carr (@WillCarrFNC) September 15, 2017

    If We The People fail to hold onto our understanding and regard for our system of justice, if we let the mob have its way ‘sometimes’, what we are inviting is a politically correct mob mentality that will routinely exercise extreme or even deadly violence to get their way, and when that becomes the norm, then, as so often before, we will usher in a Napoleon to resolve the matter.

    Trust me – we don’t want to send out that message in a bottle:

  • Copying The 9/11 Copybook Heading

    [A repost from 09/11/2012] There’s no doubt that we will remember 9/11 for quite some time to come, but what we remember and why, is far less certain.More than remembering where I was 11 years ago, I remember how we got there. By denying the reality of…

  • “We are Americans first” – Really? The first step towards resolving a problem, is admitting you have one.

    I saw President Trump’s statement on the rioting in Virginia, and it was as good and as to the point, as can be expected. But unfortunately, it rested upon the line

    ‘We are Americans first’

    They say that the first step towards resolving a problem, is admitting that you have one. Well, we have a problem, and the problem is that I fear that phrase is not only no longer true, but is perilously close to having no meaning at all. Why? Because in order to truthfully say that we are Americans first, a person has to first be able to say:

    American

    , with some understanding of the word that’s coming out of their mouth. From what I can see, in looking at what other words are coming out of people’s mouths, I’m seeing very little to indicate that most of us do know the meaning of American, beyond the shallow legalistic sense of having been born within the geographic borders of the United States… and if that’s the extent of your understanding, when you come up against racist organizations advocating for ‘America‘… well… do you see the problem?

    Sure, you’re given a legal status by being born within our borders, but you do not, in any meaningful sense, become an American by such means alone, at least not in a way that is any different from how a person becomes a German or a Russian, i.e. by being born of parents on American soil – aka: by ‘blood and soil’, which, BTW, also happens to be the traditional rallying cry of fascists.

    Now do you see the problem there?

    Being an American that understands the meaning of that word, American, requires understanding that the meaning of that word, is not gained by means of osmosis through your ancestors blood, or through the soil that your mother gave birth to you upon, which were features and events which you yourself had absolutely no hand in, knowledge of, or choice in. If that and your “[insert your favorite color here] Pride!“, are the extent of your claim to being an American, then you are not, in that more meaningful sense, an American.

    To understand what it does mean to be an American, means understanding, and accepting as best you can, the fruit of that particular set of ideas that were expressed in our Declaration of Independence, especially, that:

    “…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….”

    Those phrases of our Declaration, have deep philosophical meaning, which gives voice to the meaning and purpose of America, and yet, as Jefferson later wrote to a friend, they weren’t meant to be especially impressive, or ‘deep’, or as an exercise in edgy literary or philosophical virtue signaling, but simply as expressions of something much more commonly profound:

    “Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c…”

    If those ideas and ‘harmonizing sentiments’ or the ‘elementary books of public right’ are foreign to you, then you necessarily stand mute before them, making you intellectually, and spiritually, foreign to America, no matter what the legal status of your physical ties to its ‘blood and soil‘ are.

    Am I being too harsh in this? If we look about the land today, what evidence do we find for the sentiment that ‘We are Americans first’? If we look to Charlottesville, Virginia, for instance, what did we see on display there last weekend? When I look at the center of these heinous events, I’m seeing prime reasons for the fears that I’m talking about, as racist, socialist, anti-American sentiments were on display in abundance, with very few visible examples of those ‘Harmonizing Sentiments’ which are what made it possible for the contents of our melting pot, to want to see themselves as being “Americans first.”

    For Instance:

    • Looking to ‘The Right’, we see, the Alt-Right, KKK (an organization formed at the end of the Civil War by Democrats, after losing a war against those harmonizing sentiments of the Declaration of Independence), neo-nazi racists, who by their very claims to being superior to others by virtue of being born as, and where, they were (‘blood & soil’), are the fervent antithesis to what it means to be an American – they hold explicitly anti-American beliefs – seriously, it doesn’t get much more anti-American than holding a goddamned Nazi fire light parades (which, BTW, they had a lawful permit to do, and which Govt has no power to prevent (see 1st Amdt)), and they were carrying out this abomination on American soil, through a college, while claiming to be ‘standing up’ for something called ‘white culture’. Having read some examples of what they mean by that, I can say that such notions of culture as theirs, have more to do with what’s grown in a untended Petri dish, than with those achievements of Western Culture that they are likely attempting to appropriate, and to take credit for by virtue of their ‘blood & soil’.
    • Looking to ‘The Left’, we see ‘counter-demonstrators’ which include supporters of Black Lives Matter, who include racists who call for days without whites, and demand reparations by virtue of being black… IOW, they make claims of being entitled to privileges which others do not, by virtue of being born as, and where, they were (‘blood & soil’), which is also the fervent antithesis to what it means to be an American (a status which can only be had by understanding and choice) who came to Charlottesville from across the country, for the purpose of using force and violence to oppose, disrupt and shut down a lawfully permitted demonstration (which, BTW, is a criminal and fascistic tactic), and to show their opposition to the white racists – not for being racists, as they themselves are racist as well, but for favoring the ‘wrong’ color code in their racist stance – they are a rival team in the same league – while also claiming to ‘stand up’ for either nihil no culture (Antifa or Black Bloc Anarchists), or for something called ‘black culture’… and again, such notions of culture have more to do with what develops in a Petri dish, than with what the likes of a Martin Luther King, George Washington Carver or Fredrick Douglas, would’ve recognized as being worthwhile culture (which for them, was Western Culture).
    • Looking to ‘The Left’, and to ‘The Right’, we see among the protesters and ‘counter-demonstrators’ of BLM, Antifa, KKK, Alt-Right, a vociferous opposition to the idea ‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights‘, a violent opposition to the right of freedom of Speech and the willingness to use violence to suppress it, and violent opposition to the right to peaceful assembly and association, opposition to banking, free trade and a free market, under our Constitution and an objective Rule of Law. All sides have a fervent support for one variant or another, on the theme of the socialistic centralization of power, in opposition to upholding individual rights and property rights for all, under a constitutional Rule of Law, to promote the interests of a favored few.

    The fact is, that there is nothing in the nature of a measurable separation of views, existing between these supposedly ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ groups, as that which the European scale of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ presumes a wide separation of fundamental beliefs: that is not the case here! It is foolish for us to continue using that yardstick to measure our political climate with. These groups which we so carelessly call ‘Left’ and ‘Right’, share the very same fundamental ideals, they share the same excuses for ‘principles’, they differ only in subjective and arbitrary preferences of skin color, traditions and cultural icons. Neither of these groups are, or see themselves as, ‘Americans first‘, not in any meaningful sense – they cannot, as they both seek to centralize power into the outstretched hands of the federal govt, so as to impose their preference at the expense of all of their fellow Americans’ individual rights and powers. That is Anti-American. Period. They are two wings of the same tyrannical monster, whose wings were flapping so horrifically in Virginia, this weekend.

    But of course we shouldn’t confine our search to Charlottesville alone – how about if we expand our search to those governing our nation? Bad news there too, for we’ve got members of Congress there who’re begging for our attention, as was clearly and forcefully demonstrated earlier in the same week, when a sitting United States Congresswomen, one who has a seat on the ‘Homeland Security’ board, ‘came out’ on Twitter to declare that the NRA, because of the viral ad campaign of its spokesperson Dana Loesch, that they are all ‘quickly becoming a domestic security threat‘!

    I’m just going to say it. #NRA & @DLoesch are quickly becoming domestic security threats under President Trump. We can’t ignore that.

    — Kathleen Rice (@RepKathleenRice) August 11, 2017

    This, for their ads which have denounced the violent actions of the left wing extremists, which mainstream left wing individuals and organizations have lauded, and called for meeting their violence and lies, with… prepare for it: ‘The clenched fist of Truth’… which, in case you missed it, means using: Words.

    Such comments go far beyond simple political partisanship. This Representative, elected into the United States Government, who is directly and indirectly, representative of a sizable portion of our populace, is denouncing large swaths of her fellow members of We The People, for exercising some of those individual rights that are protected under the 1st Amendment, those of speech and association, in order to protect those rights of baring arms in self defense that are protected by the 2nd Amendment, Amendments which were first formulated to embody the ‘harmonizing sentiments of the day’, and which We The People insisted be amended to our Constitution, in order for it to be ratified. IOW, for defending those causal principles of America, and for calling out those who are abusing those rights which the Bill of Rights were placed there to defend, for that, Dana Loesch, and every member of the NRA, are being afrighted by officials of the Govt that was established to uphold and defend those very rights, as being potential domestic security threats.

    Well, you might say, what if we look to that area of private enterprise that’s specifically protected under our Constitution, the Press? Unfortunately, in at least one of those institutions that enjoys the 1st Amendments protections for ‘freedom of the press‘, the New York Times, has also blatantly taken up the attack upon both Dana and the NRA, for their criticizing the shabbiness of their work, by deliberately misconstruing a word in their promise to ‘Fisk the New York Times’ (‘Fisk’ being an Internet term which means to conduct a line-by-line cross examination of a statement), as being their intention to do sexual violence by means of ‘fisting‘ the New York Times (!). And we needn’t look too hard to find reams of similar comments and sentiments, being expressed in the Washington Post, the electronic news media, the entertainment industry, Academia, and so on.

    So, we’ve got members of the Govt that are actively opposing its own citizens the exercising their rights as protected under the 1st Amdt, in defense of those rights protected under the 2nd Amdt, and we have representatives of that institution which the Constitution specifically protects in order to exercise whatever oversight is needed to keep Govt in its place, the Press, who are joining in on the undermining and abusing of those central individual rights that are protected under their patron 1st Amendment.

    If supporters of the NRA are threats, it is not to America, but to those alien ideas that are seeking to displace it, in the open minds of those who no longer see themselves as Americans first.

    But wait, there’s more! When President Trump first spoke about the evil events in Charlottseville,

    “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides.”

    , he was rebuked for not naming every particular organization devoted to hatred, bigotry and violence, and similarly picked over on each subsequent comment. But most of all, he’s being criticized for daring to observe that there was bad behavior on each side. We also have, not only the usual suspects in the MSM, but seemingly every republican politician eager to preen and primp their moral outrage before the voting public, because Trump dared to note the FACT that there was bad behavior on all sides. IOW, feelings trump truth. That too, is incompatible with being ‘Americans first’.

    If these people were a mere minority among a majority of people who do understand that ‘We are all Americans first‘, then we’d expect to see evidence of a majority of people who were educated in those ‘harmonizing sentiments’ of the Declaration of Independence, and familiar with the hard and difficult two centuries of history between then and now, who would be willing and able to call these frauds out for their intellectual equivalence of stolen valor – Right? You’d expect that they would be able to say loudly and proudly, that if you don’t believe in individual rights for all, then you are all wrong. Period.

    But there is hardly a peep. Oh sure, some of them (if easily portrayed as ‘the right’) are denounced, but there are no actual reasons given, only cheap partisan name calling, and there’s a reason for that – one wing, BLM/Antifa, is but the mirror reflection of the other, Alt-Right/Neo-Nazi, on either side of a monstrous and tyrannical core.

    There is no justification for either group, from either wing, or for anyone else who clings to such an ignorant and primitive rage  as racism is, as a cause to rally their lives around, and are unworthy of tainting the blood and soil of this land that has been hallowed by the blood of those who struggled, fought and died for its ideals, not its mud. But having no justification for their views, is not the same thing as having no right to them, or that our Constitution doesn’t protect their right to be unrighteous – they do, and it does, and central to being an American, is understanding that.

    These people, the racists, the neo-Nazis, the Alt-Right, Rep. Rice and the New York Times, and those members of We The People who are aligned with them, do not seem to me to understand what is meant by ‘We are all Americans‘. Who these people are, are the unappetizing leftovers of what naturally remains of humanity, when those higher ideals of justice and liberty that are the culmination of 3,000 years of Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian history, ideals which America was formed in order to exemplify, are absent from the minds of those who are ‘American’ by ‘blood and soil’ alone.

    And leading the effort to actively remove those ideals and all they depend upon, have been the pro-regressive Left in our colleges, the pro-regressive Right in our business leaders, and their respective government functionaries, who’ve all been eager to reap easy political gains through the lucrative process of scholastically de-Americanizing America of Americans.

    On the bright side (brightness being a relative term, when surrounded by darkness), they do look absolutely ridiculous as they attempt to appropriate the appearances of Western decency and manners, as the Left dons pink pussy hats and vagina costumes to protest the crude behavior of the President, as the Alt-Right marches for ‘pride’ while emulating friggin’ Nazis (!), while ‘The Right’ claims to be fighting for what’s right, after having taken Jonathan Gruber’s bargain of ObamaCare for the power to put their own pragmatic stamp upon it, as long as they can be the ones in control over its power, over you.

    No, unfortunately, I’m sorry to say, that wherever I look, to ‘The Left’, or to ‘The Right’, or to entertainment, academia, or to our own government, I don’t find an over abundance of people who think of themselves as ‘Americans first’, but only people who have accustomed us to a new normal of violent anti-Americanism, where this new freedom of sincere violence, over freedom of speech, is to now be found acceptable across the land. These ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ wings being spread in the spirit of Lenin and Hitler, do not rest, and they do not in any way sit separated at either end of a long European scale, but are visibly joined together around a narrow body of a monstrous core belief in centralizing power to ‘do good’ to those who must endure it, whose ‘left’ wing and ‘right’ wing are in ‘principle’ in full agreement, and separated only by narrow particular preferences, such as which color to champion, and which flavor of totalitarianism, to impose – they are, as I said above, but rival teams in the same wannabe totalitarian league.

    We have degraded, discarded and turned our back upon those concepts and ideas which formed the laws that America was formed from. And as God told the Israelites, when they chose to follow a King, rather than The Law he gave them –

    ‘You’re on your own.’

    The disasters that will follow the vanishing Americans, will be unavoidable self fulfilling sophistries, unless we again learn what being an American means, and then be able again to see ourselves as being Americans first, which leaves plenty of room for our many arguments to follow after that. Someone unironically asked “Can’t we all just get along?“, and the answer is ‘No, we can’t‘, which is the reason why we have a government formed from our Constitution, so that, no matter how ridiculous or despicable that I might think that you are, your right to be that isn’t threatened by my disapproval of you. That is central to being an American, and there can be no America, without that understanding being first in our minds.

    We have to fix that first, or we can fughedaboudit.

    The most tragic part is, that it is ridiculously easy to fix that, to harmonize our sentiments with those ‘elementary books of public right‘, but only if we first admit to having the problem, that we are not now a people who see themselves as being Americans first.

    I just hope that enough of us do still want to be.

  • “We are Americans first” – Really? The first step towards resolving a problem, is admitting you have one.

    I saw President Trump’s statement on the rioting in Virginia, and it was as good and as to the point, as can be expected. But unfortunately, it rested upon the line

    ‘We are Americans first’

    They say that the first step towards resolving a problem, is admitting that you have one. Well, we have a problem, and the problem is that I fear that phrase is not only no longer true, but is perilously close to having no meaning at all. Why? Because in order to truthfully say that we are Americans first, a person has to first be able to say:

    American

    , with some understanding of the word that’s coming out of their mouth. From what I can see, in looking at what other words are coming out of people’s mouths, I’m seeing very little to indicate that most of us do know the meaning of American, beyond the shallow legalistic sense of having been born within the geographic borders of the United States… and if that’s the extent of your understanding, when you come up against racist organizations advocating for ‘America‘… well… do you see the problem?

    Sure, you’re given a legal status by being born within our borders, but you do not, in any meaningful sense, become an American by such means alone, at least not in a way that is any different from how a person becomes a German or a Russian, i.e. by being born of parents on American soil – aka: by ‘blood and soil’, which, BTW, also happens to be the traditional rallying cry of fascists.

    Now do you see the problem there?

    Being an American that understands the meaning of that word, American, requires understanding that the meaning of that word, is not gained by means of osmosis through your ancestors blood, or through the soil that your mother gave birth to you upon, which were features and events which you yourself had absolutely no hand in, knowledge of, or choice in. If that and your “[insert your favorite color here] Pride!“, are the extent of your claim to being an American, then you are not, in that more meaningful sense, an American.

    To understand what it does mean to be an American, means understanding, and accepting as best you can, the fruit of that particular set of ideas that were expressed in our Declaration of Independence, especially, that:

    “…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….”

    Those phrases of our Declaration, have deep philosophical meaning, which gives voice to the meaning and purpose of America, and yet, as Jefferson later wrote to a friend, they weren’t meant to be especially impressive, or ‘deep’, or as an exercise in edgy literary or philosophical virtue signaling, but simply as expressions of something much more commonly profound:

    “Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c…”

    If those ideas and ‘harmonizing sentiments’ or the ‘elementary books of public right’ are foreign to you, then you necessarily stand mute before them, making you intellectually, and spiritually, foreign to America, no matter what the legal status of your physical ties to its ‘blood and soil‘ are.

    Am I being too harsh in this? If we look about the land today, what evidence do we find for the sentiment that ‘We are Americans first’? If we look to Charlottesville, Virginia, for instance, what did we see on display there last weekend? When I look at the center of these heinous events, I’m seeing prime reasons for the fears that I’m talking about, as racist, socialist, anti-American sentiments were on display in abundance, with very few visible examples of those ‘Harmonizing Sentiments’ which are what made it possible for the contents of our melting pot, to want to see themselves as being “Americans first.”

    For Instance:

    • Looking to ‘The Right’, we see, the Alt-Right, KKK (an organization formed at the end of the Civil War by Democrats, after losing a war against those harmonizing sentiments of the Declaration of Independence), neo-nazi racists, who by their very claims to being superior to others by virtue of being born as, and where, they were (‘blood & soil’), are the fervent antithesis to what it means to be an American – they hold explicitly anti-American beliefs – seriously, it doesn’t get much more anti-American than holding a goddamned Nazi fire light parades (which, BTW, they had a lawful permit to do, and which Govt has no power to prevent (see 1st Amdt)), and they were carrying out this abomination on American soil, through a college, while claiming to be ‘standing up’ for something called ‘white culture’. Having read some examples of what they mean by that, I can say that such notions of culture as theirs, have more to do with what’s grown in a untended Petri dish, than with those achievements of Western Culture that they are likely attempting to appropriate, and to take credit for by virtue of their ‘blood & soil’.
    • Looking to ‘The Left’, we see ‘counter-demonstrators’ which include supporters of Black Lives Matter, who include racists who call for days without whites, and demand reparations by virtue of being black… IOW, they make claims of being entitled to privileges which others do not, by virtue of being born as, and where, they were (‘blood & soil’), which is also the fervent antithesis to what it means to be an American (a status which can only be had by understanding and choice) who came to Charlottesville from across the country, for the purpose of using force and violence to oppose, disrupt and shut down a lawfully permitted demonstration (which, BTW, is a criminal and fascistic tactic), and to show their opposition to the white racists – not for being racists, as they themselves are racist as well, but for favoring the ‘wrong’ color code in their racist stance – they are a rival team in the same league – while also claiming to ‘stand up’ for either nihil no culture (Antifa or Black Bloc Anarchists), or for something called ‘black culture’… and again, such notions of culture have more to do with what develops in a Petri dish, than with what the likes of a Martin Luther King, George Washington Carver or Fredrick Douglas, would’ve recognized as being worthwhile culture (which for them, was Western Culture).
    • Looking to ‘The Left’, and to ‘The Right’, we see among the protesters and ‘counter-demonstrators’ of BLM, Antifa, KKK, Alt-Right, a vociferous opposition to the idea ‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights‘, a violent opposition to the right of freedom of Speech and the willingness to use violence to suppress it, and violent opposition to the right to peaceful assembly and association, opposition to banking, free trade and a free market, under our Constitution and an objective Rule of Law. All sides have a fervent support for one variant or another, on the theme of the socialistic centralization of power, in opposition to upholding individual rights and property rights for all, under a constitutional Rule of Law, to promote the interests of a favored few.

    The fact is, that there is nothing in the nature of a measurable separation of views, existing between these supposedly ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ groups, as that which the European scale of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ presumes a wide separation of fundamental beliefs: that is not the case here! It is foolish for us to continue using that yardstick to measure our political climate with. These groups which we so carelessly call ‘Left’ and ‘Right’, share the very same fundamental ideals, they share the same excuses for ‘principles’, they differ only in subjective and arbitrary preferences of skin color, traditions and cultural icons. Neither of these groups are, or see themselves as, ‘Americans first‘, not in any meaningful sense – they cannot, as they both seek to centralize power into the outstretched hands of the federal govt, so as to impose their preference at the expense of all of their fellow Americans’ individual rights and powers. That is Anti-American. Period. They are two wings of the same tyrannical monster, whose wings were flapping so horrifically in Virginia, this weekend.

    But of course we shouldn’t confine our search to Charlottesville alone – how about if we expand our search to those governing our nation? Bad news there too, for we’ve got members of Congress there who’re begging for our attention, as was clearly and forcefully demonstrated earlier in the same week, when a sitting United States Congresswomen, one who has a seat on the ‘Homeland Security’ board, ‘came out’ on Twitter to declare that the NRA, because of the viral ad campaign of its spokesperson Dana Loesch, that they are all ‘quickly becoming a domestic security threat‘!

    I’m just going to say it. #NRA & @DLoesch are quickly becoming domestic security threats under President Trump. We can’t ignore that.

    — Kathleen Rice (@RepKathleenRice) August 11, 2017

    This, for their ads which have denounced the violent actions of the left wing extremists, which mainstream left wing individuals and organizations have lauded, and called for meeting their violence and lies, with… prepare for it: ‘The clenched fist of Truth’… which, in case you missed it, means using: Words.

    Such comments go far beyond simple political partisanship. This Representative, elected into the United States Government, who is directly and indirectly, representative of a sizable portion of our populace, is denouncing large swaths of her fellow members of We The People, for exercising some of those individual rights that are protected under the 1st Amendment, those of speech and association, in order to protect those rights of baring arms in self defense that are protected by the 2nd Amendment, Amendments which were first formulated to embody the ‘harmonizing sentiments of the day’, and which We The People insisted be amended to our Constitution, in order for it to be ratified. IOW, for defending those causal principles of America, and for calling out those who are abusing those rights which the Bill of Rights were placed there to defend, for that, Dana Loesch, and every member of the NRA, are being afrighted by officials of the Govt that was established to uphold and defend those very rights, as being potential domestic security threats.

    Well, you might say, what if we look to that area of private enterprise that’s specifically protected under our Constitution, the Press? Unfortunately, in at least one of those institutions that enjoys the 1st Amendments protections for ‘freedom of the press‘, the New York Times, has also blatantly taken up the attack upon both Dana and the NRA, for their criticizing the shabbiness of their work, by deliberately misconstruing a word in their promise to ‘Fisk the New York Times’ (‘Fisk’ being an Internet term which means to conduct a line-by-line cross examination of a statement), as being their intention to do sexual violence by means of ‘fisting‘ the New York Times (!). And we needn’t look too hard to find reams of similar comments and sentiments, being expressed in the Washington Post, the electronic news media, the entertainment industry, Academia, and so on.

    So, we’ve got members of the Govt that are actively opposing its own citizens the exercising their rights as protected under the 1st Amdt, in defense of those rights protected under the 2nd Amdt, and we have representatives of that institution which the Constitution specifically protects in order to exercise whatever oversight is needed to keep Govt in its place, the Press, who are joining in on the undermining and abusing of those central individual rights that are protected under their patron 1st Amendment.

    If supporters of the NRA are threats, it is not to America, but to those alien ideas that are seeking to displace it, in the open minds of those who no longer see themselves as Americans first.

    But wait, there’s more! When President Trump first spoke about the evil events in Charlottseville,

    “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides.”

    , he was rebuked for not naming every particular organization devoted to hatred, bigotry and violence, and similarly picked over on each subsequent comment. But most of all, he’s being criticized for daring to observe that there was bad behavior on each side. We also have, not only the usual suspects in the MSM, but seemingly every republican politician eager to preen and primp their moral outrage before the voting public, because Trump dared to note the FACT that there was bad behavior on all sides. IOW, feelings trump truth. That too, is incompatible with being ‘Americans first’.

    If these people were a mere minority among a majority of people who do understand that ‘We are all Americans first‘, then we’d expect to see evidence of a majority of people who were educated in those ‘harmonizing sentiments’ of the Declaration of Independence, and familiar with the hard and difficult two centuries of history between then and now, who would be willing and able to call these frauds out for their intellectual equivalence of stolen valor – Right? You’d expect that they would be able to say loudly and proudly, that if you don’t believe in individual rights for all, then you are all wrong. Period.

    But there is hardly a peep. Oh sure, some of them (if easily portrayed as ‘the right’) are denounced, but there are no actual reasons given, only cheap partisan name calling, and there’s a reason for that – one wing, BLM/Antifa, is but the mirror reflection of the other, Alt-Right/Neo-Nazi, on either side of a monstrous and tyrannical core.

    There is no justification for either group, from either wing, or for anyone else who clings to such an ignorant and primitive rage  as racism is, as a cause to rally their lives around, and are unworthy of tainting the blood and soil of this land that has been hallowed by the blood of those who struggled, fought and died for its ideals, not its mud. But having no justification for their views, is not the same thing as having no right to them, or that our Constitution doesn’t protect their right to be unrighteous – they do, and it does, and central to being an American, is understanding that.

    These people, the racists, the neo-Nazis, the Alt-Right, Rep. Rice and the New York Times, and those members of We The People who are aligned with them, do not seem to me to understand what is meant by ‘We are all Americans‘. Who these people are, are the unappetizing leftovers of what naturally remains of humanity, when those higher ideals of justice and liberty that are the culmination of 3,000 years of Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian history, ideals which America was formed in order to exemplify, are absent from the minds of those who are ‘American’ by ‘blood and soil’ alone.

    And leading the effort to actively remove those ideals and all they depend upon, have been the pro-regressive Left in our colleges, the pro-regressive Right in our business leaders, and their respective government functionaries, who’ve all been eager to reap easy political gains through the lucrative process of scholastically de-Americanizing America of Americans.

    On the bright side (brightness being a relative term, when surrounded by darkness), they do look absolutely ridiculous as they attempt to appropriate the appearances of Western decency and manners, as the Left dons pink pussy hats and vagina costumes to protest the crude behavior of the President, as the Alt-Right marches for ‘pride’ while emulating friggin’ Nazis (!), while ‘The Right’ claims to be fighting for what’s right, after having taken Jonathan Gruber’s bargain of ObamaCare for the power to put their own pragmatic stamp upon it, as long as they can be the ones in control over its power, over you.

    No, unfortunately, I’m sorry to say, that wherever I look, to ‘The Left’, or to ‘The Right’, or to entertainment, academia, or to our own government, I don’t find an over abundance of people who think of themselves as ‘Americans first’, but only people who have accustomed us to a new normal of violent anti-Americanism, where this new freedom of sincere violence, over freedom of speech, is to now be found acceptable across the land. These ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ wings being spread in the spirit of Lenin and Hitler, do not rest, and they do not in any way sit separated at either end of a long European scale, but are visibly joined together around a narrow body of a monstrous core belief in centralizing power to ‘do good’ to those who must endure it, whose ‘left’ wing and ‘right’ wing are in ‘principle’ in full agreement, and separated only by narrow particular preferences, such as which color to champion, and which flavor of totalitarianism, to impose – they are, as I said above, but rival teams in the same wannabe totalitarian league.

    We have degraded, discarded and turned our back upon those concepts and ideas which formed the laws that America was formed from. And as God told the Israelites, when they chose to follow a King, rather than The Law he gave them –

    ‘You’re on your own.’

    The disasters that will follow the vanishing Americans, will be unavoidable self fulfilling sophistries, unless we again learn what being an American means, and then be able again to see ourselves as being Americans first, which leaves plenty of room for our many arguments to follow after that. Someone unironically asked “Can’t we all just get along?“, and the answer is ‘No, we can’t‘, which is the reason why we have a government formed from our Constitution, so that, no matter how ridiculous or despicable that I might think that you are, your right to be that isn’t threatened by my disapproval of you. That is central to being an American, and there can be no America, without that understanding being first in our minds.

    We have to fix that first, or we can fughedaboudit.

    The most tragic part is, that it is ridiculously easy to fix that, to harmonize our sentiments with those ‘elementary books of public right‘, but only if we first admit to having the problem, that we are not now a people who see themselves as being Americans first.

    I just hope that enough of us do still want to be.

  • GOP to America: If you like your Repeal, you can keep your Repeal

    GOP to America: If you like your Repeal, you can keep your Repeal.


    Conservatives to GOP in 2018: If you like your Elected Office, you can keep your Elected Office.

    Occupants of geographic America: If you like your Liberty, you can keep your Liberty.

    The Catch-22 Republic:

    “…And for this reason, I said, money and honour have no attraction for them; good men do not wish to be openly demanding payment for governing and so to get the name of hirelings, nor by secretly helping themselves out of the public revenues to get the name of thieves. And not being ambitious they do not care about honour. Wherefore necessity must be laid upon them, and they must be induced to serve from the fear of punishment. And this, as I imagine, is the reason why the forwardness to take office, instead of waiting to be compelled, has been deemed dishonourable. Now the worst part of the punishment is that he who refuses to rule is liable to be ruled by one who is worse than himself. And the fear of this, as I conceive, induces the good to take office, not because they would, but because they cannot help –not under the idea that they are going to have any benefit or enjoyment themselves, but as a necessity, and because they are not able to commit the task of ruling to any one who is better than themselves, or indeed as good. For there is reason to think that if a city were composed entirely of good men, then to avoid office would be as much an object of contention as to obtain office is at present; then we should have plain proof that the true ruler is not meant by nature to regard his own interest, but that of his subjects; and every one who knew this would choose rather to receive a benefit from another than to have the trouble of conferring one. So far am I from agreeing with Thrasymachus that justice is the interest of the stronger. This latter question need not be further discussed at present; but when Thrasymachus says that the life of the unjust is more advantageous than that of the just, his new statement appears to me to be of a far more serious character. Which of us has spoken truly? And which sort of life, Glaucon, do you prefer?…”

    Which do you prefer?

    What chance do you think there is that you’ll get it?

    Carry on.

  • When the Truth burns, turn up the heat!

    For some reason, the Pro-Regressive Left, and the feminists in particular, have been targeting Dana Loesch lately, which… is a 50/50 proposition. If they wanted to get publicity, well, ok, sure. But if they were hoping to look like something other than idiots in doing so… it’s hasn’t proven to be such a good idea.

    More puzzling, is that they are claiming to be a movement that’s ‘pro-women’ and ‘anti-violence’, while going after Dana, in the company of people who are the most abusive to women (those who are eager to bag, beat, mutilate, deprive them of their rights and otherwise abuse women) for political and religious reasons, and those who’d like nothing more than to see women, and their children, disarmed, even if at the cost of their own lives – to score political points.

    But maybe most amazing, is that they accuse Dana of ‘violent rhetoric’, when, in the case of the NRA video that started it all, she’s speaking in front videos of the Pro-Regressive Left’s violent, nationwide demonstrations and rioting, as she’s calling for meeting their lies and vitriol, not with the violence that they prefer, but with Truth, and yeah, necessarily, the ‘clenched fist of truth‘, and the only way to claim that being hit with the truth is violence, is if it burns them physically (not just mentally).

    These groups are led by the likes of Linda Sarsour, who have endorsed jihad, participated in terrorism, and who are especially enthusiastic about using their freedom of speech, to denounce your freedom of speech, with their own vile, racist, mysoginistic and misandrist language (maybe that’s what they mean by ‘sexual equality’?), in political action groups of hyper-partisan self-segregating women (they refuse to associate with women who disagree with them politically), in order to promote the suffocation of liberty, through your political or religious submission.

    Fortunately, Dana is proficient in exercising all of her rights, and has an effective one-two combination of those rights protected under the 1st and 2nd Amendment, that doesn’t mince any words:

    “To Women’s March organizers Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez: You don’t get to call me a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe or xenophobe when a man you look up to and call honorable and hold hands with and take selfies with represents the exact type of bigot you pretend to march against. If you want to stop hate, start with your mentor, Daddy Farrakhan. If you feel you’re “not safe,” go tell Daddy Farrakhan to tone down his divisive, racial rhetoric. Ladies, you have the power to end Daddy Farrakhan’s hate-filled propaganda. Plan a march. I’ll be there. Watch my full commentary on Farrakhan’s Anarchist Angels on NRATV.”

    Yeah… they’re not the smartest bunch of nuts.

    Nationwide Protest

    If you’d like to watch the fun as their own unreasoning vitriol explodes in their faces, tune in to Data’s radio show tomorrow, or catch it in a live simulcast on Facebook.

    #NRA2DOJ

  • Trumping Alinsky pt 1 – Ward Cleaver meets Al Bundy

    Have you wondered how it is, that the pro-regressive’s best tried and true tactics, tactics that have proven so highly effective at hamstringing their targets over the course of the past 50+ years, have suddenly begun to fail them so publicly? And although, so far, they’ve been unable to lay a solid glove, or even a lasting tweet, on Donald Trump (and no, second hand rumors of Russians do neither), he’s hardly the only example, just the most persistent day to day one. Think Brexit, Trump, the body slamming Montana maniac, Rep. Gianforte, or James Comey being fired, or James Comey leaking his own memos, or James Comey attempting to sabotage Trump, and fingering former Attorney General Lynch, instead, which even Chris ‘thrill running up my leg!‘ Matthews had to admit, has made their entire Russian angle, go bust.

    What’s up with that?

    If you wonder on that long enough to ask some questions, and long enough to move on from those initial questions, to still other questions (and I do mean questions, mind you, not merely doubts), you might find that they will bring you face to face with some interesting clues and questions, which, if you’re willing to follow them, will lead you into taking a closer look at who it is that we, and you, are. True, they might not provide the full answer, and what they do provide, might be a little unsettling, but the clues are at least easy enough to find, and to follow, and, as the examined life is not worth spinning, you might as well.

    Right?

    For instance, to give you a clue just how easy it is to find these clues, just turn on the News. Take a look at the media spokespeople who’re telling you what’s going on – man, woman, Maddow, local, network, web or cable – it doesn’t matter, just take a look, and then ask yourself this question:

    ‘Does the way that these news sources communicate to you – not what they communicate, but how they present themselves and the way they present their information – seem to you to be normal for this day and age?’

    With one or two rare exceptions, which prove the rule, the answer to that will be: No. And I’ll betcha that if you ask yourself what group, place, or time period, that they do remind you of, I’ll bet that the ‘when‘ in time that they remind you most of, is some sort of throwback to the 1950’s, maybe early 1960’s.

    Don’t they?

    And the answer to why that is, is a big clue to why Trump is winning. And yes, he, at least, is still winning. Even now. And you don’t need to be a Trump supporter – I’m certainly not (and by that I only mean that he has no history of displaying the manner and commitment to ideas, that I can support) – in order to see this; it’s just right out there in the open, if you open your eyes and look.

    Those that we are in the habit of looking to, for information about our world, look like they do, because the media, Left, Right and center, have consciously formed themselves from a template derived from a 1950’s ‘Leave it to Beaver!’ world of Ward Cleavers – as have the more popular means of manipulating (or attacking) the world we perceive around us.

    Just look at what is deemed to be ‘edgy‘ today – think Vagina costumes and pink pussy hats. They’re only conceived of as being ‘edgy‘, in relation to those things that would shock that old ‘Leave it to Beaver’ world view – do such fashion choices shock the generations raised in a world of ‘South Park’ or ‘The Simpson’s’? I’m gonna say, nope – in fact, they’re far more likely to laugh at and mock it (another big clue).

    Nope, the stuffed shirt shock and outrage of the estab…but no, ‘establishment’ doesn’t quite cut it.
    What I’m referring to here is more, and less, than that… let’s call them here, our Cultural Showmen’, in that they are more than simply ‘the establishment’; these are those that have a stake in promoting the status quo, from all the places you’d typically think of, but also in areas that you’d tend to think of being less than ‘the establishment’. This would include those in and around your private life as well – school, work, church, sports, whose expectations of what they expect to see, and expect you to cheer, were formed in relation to the worldview of ‘Leave it to Beaver’ – either fondly, or in reaction to it. These are the ones you look around for, if you’re going to make a ‘un-pc joke’ – do you look around to make sure isn’t standing nearby – if you see either Ward Cleaver, or a Social Justice Warrior Madonna/Eddie Haskell, you whisper or keep silent, right? But Al Bundy?, you wave ’em over and yuck it up, right?

    Seriously, think about it. Is there a more Ward Cleaveresque visage being channeled into daily life, than that deliberately broadcast by a Brian Williams or Jake Tapper? Why do you suppose that is? They’re taken as authority figures, because they’ve represented those we’ve long thought of as being those in authority – and especially by those who resent, and/or covet, their authority.

    Every tactic used to direct and call the action in ‘the show’ of American life, is based upon that ‘Cleaver’ template. Even, and especially, the infamous Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals‘ – they all depend upon his Rule #4 which says:

    “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    Rule #4 depends upon not only understanding those rules which ‘The Enemy’ (us) lives by, but most important of all, and vital to the success of Alinsky’s entire system, is that “The Enemy” must also believe in them, or that they will at least desperately pretend to live by those rules which they claim to live by (as always, a person’s usefulness to a manipulator, increases in direct proportion to their own hypocrisy). Alinsky, the MSM, the Pro-Regressive Left & Right – let’s just call them The Showmen for short – base their power and their ability to exert it, upon their expectations that their enemy’s rules, mean something to their enemy.

    The first and most obvious meaning of this, is that we, you, our expectations, have always been the secret to their success. Right? Eddie Haskell would’ve gotten himself punched out in nothing flat, if Wally & The Beav’, weren’t raised as Wally & The Beaver’ Cleaver. Alinsky’s rules absolutely rely upon those sensibilities being in place, so that their tactics will be able to tear their targets (you, and me) down, without harm coming to themselves.

    That strategy, of slipping a Ward Cleaver mask over an Eddie Haskell sneer, was what so many thousands of the 1960’s & 1970’s radicals like Tom Hayden’s and Bill Ayer’s of the world, were following when they cut their hair, donned three piece suits, and infiltrated the respectable world of the Cleaver’s ‘Leave it to Beaver!‘. Hayden became a U.S. Senator, and Ayers became a motive force in the world of ‘Education’, as did so many others – but they didn’t leave their old tactics behind, only their hair and clothing, freeing them to ring out their charges: ‘Boozer! Philanderer! Stupid! Greedy! Cheat!‘, at a generation suddenly helplessly hamstrung by Alinsky’s Rule #4, and their own guilt. People, of course, have always had failings (and always will), but now the Eddie Haskell’s, masked in their Ward Cleaver faces, made use of Ward Cleaver’s audience, who expected the establishment to live up to their wholesome ideals – that is how you use Rule #4 to turn people’s own rules, against them.

    And the Ward Cleaver believers needn’t be outright frauds, just less than perfect. Rule #4 was key to how Bush 41 & 43 were manhandled for being ‘out of touch’ with the people, or for not being as being well spoken, highly intelligent, articulate, cultured and reserved as ‘Presidential‘ should be. The roles were even turned about on We The People, to help us to ignore Bill Clinton’s transgressions, as The Showmen directed the audience that a President had a right to his ‘privacy!‘, and to ‘have some respect for the office!‘. They, and we, were contained by the role cast for being ‘Presidential‘, and presidents 41, 42, 43 & 44, wanted, and auditioned for, that role. As have we. The Showmen are all still emulating the Cleaver look, because our expectations, are their means to acquire the power to convey their sense of shock and outrage to us, their viewers – not because they have any respect for those manners, styles and attitudes (one who holds ‘Ozzie & Harriet’ and ‘Leave it to Beaver’ dear, does not march about in vagina costumes, or wear pussy hats, or praise those who do), but because WE DO.

    But their recent ineffectiveness in so many areas shows – from Trump’s ‘loser’ to the Montana Rep. body-slamming a reporter on the eve of his election, and still winning, with a national ‘ho-hum’ response -, something has radically changed, which they’ve been surprised and were wholly unprepared for – and the rest of us should be concerned about as well.

    The Termites Coming Home to Roost
    What has changed, is of their own doing, their termites have come home to roost. You can see as much, in the satirical comedy sketches of British actor Tom Walker’s self created character, Jonathan Pie, whose portrayals of a conflicted network news reporter, are perfect illustrations of just this sort of issue I’m describing. Network newsman Pie, finds himself bound and tied and effectively gagged, by the faux-Cleaver role he has to play on camera. He clearly doesn’t believe in his role, or respect it, but having taken the role, it requires that he dutifully perform it for the camera, and the public eye. In his ‘between takes‘ moments, he drops his mask and freaks out in enthusiastically creative four-letter word style, to his off screen control room person, ‘Tim’, about how obscenely F’d up their entire shtick is… and yet as they ‘go live’, he, uncomfortably, slips the Ward Cleaver mask on once again. But the moment he can take his mask off, he colorfully rants his heart out, like this:

    “…Being offended, doesn’t work anymore! Throwing insults doesn’t work ANYMORE! The only thing that works is F’ing bothering, doing something, and all you have to do is engage in the debate, talk to people who think differently than you, and persuade them of your argument, it’s so easy, and the Left have lost the art. Stop thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is evil, and racist, or sexist, or stupid, and TALK TO THEM! Persuade them otherwise, because if you don’t, I’ll tell you what you get, PRESIDENT TRUMP!…”

    Steel your ears and listen to it all, as he pours it all out to his fellow insider, what he’d never let on to his audience – and there’s something much more going on there, than simply comedy. Part of that something, as Jonathan Pie shows, is that millennials are sick of, and disgusted with, the pretenses they’ve been compelled to pretend to, and this attitude, is a very prevalent feeling among those currently being cast by The Showmen for their role as ‘Millennials’.

    And unfortunately for the left in general, and for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in particular, who’re all still playing to an ‘Ozzie & Harriet’ and ‘Leave it to Beaver’ audience – that audience has left the building. Or, as one of former president Obama’s favorite sayings repeatedly put it:

    That’s not who we are as Americans

    Good lord, even the Chinese are laughing at our uber-offended and triggered Left, calling them ‘Baizuo’

    “…However, it may surprise you to learn that these people aren’t just a joke in America. They are the laughing stock of the world. They are looked down upon, even in countries where they don’t have a significant presence.

    In China for instance, they have a word for these people. They are called “baizuo” or the “white left” on social media. Which is interesting, because even though China has its fair share of socialists and communists, they don’t have a direct equivalent to our liberal snowflakes. …”

    Hey Showmen! Psst! Do you recall those ‘cool teen in school’ TV shows that you used to transform America with? Do you remember the uber-uptight, uncool, nerdy teacher/principals, that you often had wander into a scene to impart words of wisdom, such as:

    “Now students, remember that you are young adults now, and I trust you to follow the rules and do the right thing, ‘cool’?”

    , to the kiddies for comic relief? Guess what ‘Showmen‘, with the ‘Leave it to Beaver’s America gone, you’ve become the understudies for the role of Mr. Tuttle – that is who you now are.

    Mr. Tuttle = The New Left

    And Donald Trump, in particular, rather than auditioning for the role that The Showmen were offering him – which I suspect that a couple decades on Reality T.V., told him no longer exists – has been improvising his own unscripted, one man Reality T.V. show – which has been a big part of his success.

    Now, if your reaction to that is ‘But he lies!‘ or ‘He isn’t really a Conservative!‘, while I feel for you, someone’s got to break it to you: today’s audience is not seeing that as a fault of his, but as his attraction. And seriously, if you are a fan of T.V. shows such as South Park, any of the movies of Will Ferrell or Seth Rogen, or the Hip-Hop ‘music’ of Beyonce’, or Rap – any one of which would have gotten you slapped (if not challenged to a duel) by any major figure from George Washington’s time, through to Harry Truman’s – and yet you somehow still expect the political world to continue by those rules, while you yuck it up with the ‘best’ of modernity? Sorry, but I doubt if you’re even convincing yourself on that one, and you look ridiculous (and not a little bit manipulative and deceptive) trying to influence others to buy into it. Stop it. Pick one world or the other – you can’t have both.

    Similarly, what once would have drawn mass outrage nationwide, a candidate for representative, physically body slamming a news reporter, drew little more than ‘ho-hums’ from coast to coast – not because people think it was okay, but because they are tired of the entire show. People aren’t willing to play along, as faux-reporter Jonathan Pie said, ‘anymore!’, and they resent The Showmen’s ‘laugh track’ trying to prod them on. Trump is advancing and prevailing today, because he fits in with today, while his opponents – Left and Right – have tied themselves to a world that was canceled decades ago. Reality T.V.  star Trump, is brazenly doing to The Showmen, what their own Eddie Haskels’ have been surreptitiously doing to us all for decades. He’s flipped Rule #4 on them and has been holding them up to their own pretensions, by both fair means and foul, and America has been voting them off the Reality T.V. island, and their audience participation has been loudly and raucously delivering the line: “Your fired!“.

    The Showmen are victims of their own success in fundamentally transforming the world, but ironically, their Brave New World is one which someone like Donald Trump is far better suited to performing in, than that ‘Leave it to Beaver’ role they woefully miscast themselves into – as clearly, not a damn one of them actually cares for, or reveres, any of the fundamentals which that role requires (again: one who holds ‘Leave it to Beaver’ dear, does not march about in vagina costumes, or wear pink pussy hats, or praise those who do), and the Youth, the Millennials, just as attuned to hypocrisy today, as the young have always been, see more than enough hypocrisy in the Faux-Cleavers. How many Professors spouting Marxist tripe while pulling down six figure salaries, or socialist enthusing senators who own three houses, or ‘Truth to Power!‘ speaking newscasters like Dan Rather, or Brian Williams, being caught out with their forged documents and outlandish stolen valor lies, do you think they need to see, before questioning their credibility? Trump, believe it or not, is credible, because he clearly glories in all the faux-cleavers disdain – his money, his toys, his wives – and he is blunt, unabashedly insulting, and most of all, has become wildly successful by doing it. He may wear a suit & tie, but no one, least of all himself, sees him as ‘Ward Cleaver’, but as an Al Bundy done good.

    And yet the Showmen are still trying to pull their same old faux-outrage schtick on ‘the Trumpian Right’, unaware of how ridiculous they appear. Remember the faux-Cleaver newscaster Jonathan Pie:

    “…Being offended, doesn’t work anymore! Throwing insults doesn’t work ANYMORE!…”

    They came to war with The Donald, armed with tried and true tactics that were developed for a generation of Americans which now hardly even exists, outside of those who’re only pretending to be them. Much to their surprise, when Donald ‘Al Bundy’ Trump walked onto the stage, the viewing audience almost reflexively began roaring their approval of his every move, because it mirrors what they’ve grown accustomed to, and enjoy, and ‘love’.

    In short: The Eddie Haskell Left, found themselves trying to shame Al Bundy, and got themselves punched out – to the roar of the crowd.

    It is funny, but before we spend too much time laughing at them, those of us who aren’t caught up in either show, need to consider what happens when what were once the tactics of radicals, are now no longer considered either radical or effective.

    Which do you think is more likely – that the frustrated radicals are going to peacefully fade away, or that they’re going to violently ratchet things up?

    Mistaking ‘Progress’, for ‘Pro-Regress’, has its consequences, and fundamentally transforming a society that you never understood to begin with, is an inherently volatile process, one which has left The Showmen and their obsolete ‘Rules for Radicals‘, flailing about in front of an audience that’s grown more used to Al Bundy, Beyonce and South Park, than anything from 1950’s T.V. (except maybe for Twilight Zone), and I’m sorry, but I just can’t help LMAO at them.

    But what now? What follows after that? Once you’ve fundamentally transformed the ground that you’re standing upon, into something new and unstable – what then? We’ll get to that, in the next post.

  • Trumping Alinsky pt 1 – Ward Cleaver meets Al Bundy

    Have you wondered how it is, that the pro-regressive’s best tried and true tactics, tactics that have proven so highly effective at hamstringing their targets over the course of the past 50+ years, have suddenly begun to fail them so publicly? And although, so far, they’ve been unable to lay a solid glove, or even a lasting tweet, on Donald Trump (and no, second hand rumors of Russians do neither), he’s hardly the only example, just the most persistent day to day one. Think Brexit, Trump, the body slamming Montana maniac, Rep. Gianforte, or James Comey being fired, or James Comey leaking his own memos, or James Comey attempting to sabotage Trump, and fingering former Attorney General Lynch, instead, which even Chris ‘thrill running up my leg!‘ Matthews had to admit, has made their entire Russian angle, go bust.

    What’s up with that?

    If you wonder on that long enough to ask some questions, and long enough to move on from those initial questions, to still other questions (and I do mean questions, mind you, not merely doubts), you might find that they will bring you face to face with some interesting clues and questions, which, if you’re willing to follow them, will lead you into taking a closer look at who it is that we, and you, are. True, they might not provide the full answer, and what they do provide, might be a little unsettling, but the clues are at least easy enough to find, and to follow, and, as the examined life is not worth spinning, you might as well.

    Right?

    For instance, to give you a clue just how easy it is to find these clues, just turn on the News. Take a look at the media spokespeople who’re telling you what’s going on – man, woman, Maddow, local, network, web or cable – it doesn’t matter, just take a look, and then ask yourself this question:

    ‘Does the way that these news sources communicate to you – not what they communicate, but how they present themselves and the way they present their information – seem to you to be normal for this day and age?’

    With one or two rare exceptions, which prove the rule, the answer to that will be: No. And I’ll betcha that if you ask yourself what group, place, or time period, that they do remind you of, I’ll bet that the ‘when‘ in time that they remind you most of, is some sort of throwback to the 1950’s, maybe early 1960’s.

    Don’t they?

    And the answer to why that is, is a big clue to why Trump is winning. And yes, he, at least, is still winning. Even now. And you don’t need to be a Trump supporter – I’m certainly not (and by that I only mean that he has no history of displaying the manner and commitment to ideas, that I can support) – in order to see this; it’s just right out there in the open, if you open your eyes and look.

    Those that we are in the habit of looking to, for information about our world, look like they do, because the media, Left, Right and center, have consciously formed themselves from a template derived from a 1950’s ‘Leave it to Beaver!’ world of Ward Cleavers – as have the more popular means of manipulating (or attacking) the world we perceive around us.

    Just look at what is deemed to be ‘edgy‘ today – think Vagina costumes and pink pussy hats. They’re only conceived of as being ‘edgy‘, in relation to those things that would shock that old ‘Leave it to Beaver’ world view – do such fashion choices shock the generations raised in a world of ‘South Park’ or ‘The Simpson’s’? I’m gonna say, nope – in fact, they’re far more likely to laugh at and mock it (another big clue).

    Nope, the stuffed shirt shock and outrage of the estab…but no, ‘establishment’ doesn’t quite cut it.
    What I’m referring to here is more, and less, than that… let’s call them here, our Cultural Showmen’, in that they are more than simply ‘the establishment’; these are those that have a stake in promoting the status quo, from all the places you’d typically think of, but also in areas that you’d tend to think of being less than ‘the establishment’. This would include those in and around your private life as well – school, work, church, sports, whose expectations of what they expect to see, and expect you to cheer, were formed in relation to the worldview of ‘Leave it to Beaver’ – either fondly, or in reaction to it. These are the ones you look around for, if you’re going to make a ‘un-pc joke’ – do you look around to make sure isn’t standing nearby – if you see either Ward Cleaver, or a Social Justice Warrior Madonna/Eddie Haskell, you whisper or keep silent, right? But Al Bundy?, you wave ’em over and yuck it up, right?

    Seriously, think about it. Is there a more Ward Cleaveresque visage being channeled into daily life, than that deliberately broadcast by a Brian Williams or Jake Tapper? Why do you suppose that is? They’re taken as authority figures, because they’ve represented those we’ve long thought of as being those in authority – and especially by those who resent, and/or covet, their authority.

    Every tactic used to direct and call the action in ‘the show’ of American life, is based upon that ‘Cleaver’ template. Even, and especially, the infamous Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals‘ – they all depend upon his Rule #4 which says:

    “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    Rule #4 depends upon not only understanding those rules which ‘The Enemy’ (us) lives by, but most important of all, and vital to the success of Alinsky’s entire system, is that “The Enemy” must also believe in them, or that they will at least desperately pretend to live by those rules which they claim to live by (as always, a person’s usefulness to a manipulator, increases in direct proportion to their own hypocrisy). Alinsky, the MSM, the Pro-Regressive Left & Right – let’s just call them The Showmen for short – base their power and their ability to exert it, upon their expectations that their enemy’s rules, mean something to their enemy.

    The first and most obvious meaning of this, is that we, you, our expectations, have always been the secret to their success. Right? Eddie Haskell would’ve gotten himself punched out in nothing flat, if Wally & The Beav’, weren’t raised as Wally & The Beaver’ Cleaver. Alinsky’s rules absolutely rely upon those sensibilities being in place, so that their tactics will be able to tear their targets (you, and me) down, without harm coming to themselves.

    That strategy, of slipping a Ward Cleaver mask over an Eddie Haskell sneer, was what so many thousands of the 1960’s & 1970’s radicals like Tom Hayden’s and Bill Ayer’s of the world, were following when they cut their hair, donned three piece suits, and infiltrated the respectable world of the Cleaver’s ‘Leave it to Beaver!‘. Hayden became a U.S. Senator, and Ayers became a motive force in the world of ‘Education’, as did so many others – but they didn’t leave their old tactics behind, only their hair and clothing, freeing them to ring out their charges: ‘Boozer! Philanderer! Stupid! Greedy! Cheat!‘, at a generation suddenly helplessly hamstrung by Alinsky’s Rule #4, and their own guilt. People, of course, have always had failings (and always will), but now the Eddie Haskell’s, masked in their Ward Cleaver faces, made use of Ward Cleaver’s audience, who expected the establishment to live up to their wholesome ideals – that is how you use Rule #4 to turn people’s own rules, against them.

    And the Ward Cleaver believers needn’t be outright frauds, just less than perfect. Rule #4 was key to how Bush 41 & 43 were manhandled for being ‘out of touch’ with the people, or for not being as being well spoken, highly intelligent, articulate, cultured and reserved as ‘Presidential‘ should be. The roles were even turned about on We The People, to help us to ignore Bill Clinton’s transgressions, as The Showmen directed the audience that a President had a right to his ‘privacy!‘, and to ‘have some respect for the office!‘. They, and we, were contained by the role cast for being ‘Presidential‘, and presidents 41, 42, 43 & 44, wanted, and auditioned for, that role. As have we. The Showmen are all still emulating the Cleaver look, because our expectations, are their means to acquire the power to convey their sense of shock and outrage to us, their viewers – not because they have any respect for those manners, styles and attitudes (one who holds ‘Ozzie & Harriet’ and ‘Leave it to Beaver’ dear, does not march about in vagina costumes, or wear pussy hats, or praise those who do), but because WE DO.

    But their recent ineffectiveness in so many areas shows – from Trump’s ‘loser’ to the Montana Rep. body-slamming a reporter on the eve of his election, and still winning, with a national ‘ho-hum’ response -, something has radically changed, which they’ve been surprised and were wholly unprepared for – and the rest of us should be concerned about as well.

    The Termites Coming Home to Roost
    What has changed, is of their own doing, their termites have come home to roost. You can see as much, in the satirical comedy sketches of British actor Tom Walker’s self created character, Jonathan Pie, whose portrayals of a conflicted network news reporter, are perfect illustrations of just this sort of issue I’m describing. Network newsman Pie, finds himself bound and tied and effectively gagged, by the faux-Cleaver role he has to play on camera. He clearly doesn’t believe in his role, or respect it, but having taken the role, it requires that he dutifully perform it for the camera, and the public eye. In his ‘between takes‘ moments, he drops his mask and freaks out in enthusiastically creative four-letter word style, to his off screen control room person, ‘Tim’, about how obscenely F’d up their entire shtick is… and yet as they ‘go live’, he, uncomfortably, slips the Ward Cleaver mask on once again. But the moment he can take his mask off, he colorfully rants his heart out, like this:

    “…Being offended, doesn’t work anymore! Throwing insults doesn’t work ANYMORE! The only thing that works is F’ing bothering, doing something, and all you have to do is engage in the debate, talk to people who think differently than you, and persuade them of your argument, it’s so easy, and the Left have lost the art. Stop thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is evil, and racist, or sexist, or stupid, and TALK TO THEM! Persuade them otherwise, because if you don’t, I’ll tell you what you get, PRESIDENT TRUMP!…”

    Steel your ears and listen to it all, as he pours it all out to his fellow insider, what he’d never let on to his audience – and there’s something much more going on there, than simply comedy. Part of that something, as Jonathan Pie shows, is that millennials are sick of, and disgusted with, the pretenses they’ve been compelled to pretend to, and this attitude, is a very prevalent feeling among those currently being cast by The Showmen for their role as ‘Millennials’.

    And unfortunately for the left in general, and for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in particular, who’re all still playing to an ‘Ozzie & Harriet’ and ‘Leave it to Beaver’ audience – that audience has left the building. Or, as one of former president Obama’s favorite sayings repeatedly put it:

    That’s not who we are as Americans

    Good lord, even the Chinese are laughing at our uber-offended and triggered Left, calling them ‘Baizuo’

    “…However, it may surprise you to learn that these people aren’t just a joke in America. They are the laughing stock of the world. They are looked down upon, even in countries where they don’t have a significant presence.

    In China for instance, they have a word for these people. They are called “baizuo” or the “white left” on social media. Which is interesting, because even though China has its fair share of socialists and communists, they don’t have a direct equivalent to our liberal snowflakes. …”

    Hey Showmen! Psst! Do you recall those ‘cool teen in school’ TV shows that you used to transform America with? Do you remember the uber-uptight, uncool, nerdy teacher/principals, that you often had wander into a scene to impart words of wisdom, such as:

    “Now students, remember that you are young adults now, and I trust you to follow the rules and do the right thing, ‘cool’?”

    , to the kiddies for comic relief? Guess what ‘Showmen‘, with the ‘Leave it to Beaver’s America gone, you’ve become the understudies for the role of Mr. Tuttle – that is who you now are.

    Mr. Tuttle = The New Left

    And Donald Trump, in particular, rather than auditioning for the role that The Showmen were offering him – which I suspect that a couple decades on Reality T.V., told him no longer exists – has been improvising his own unscripted, one man Reality T.V. show – which has been a big part of his success.

    Now, if your reaction to that is ‘But he lies!‘ or ‘He isn’t really a Conservative!‘, while I feel for you, someone’s got to break it to you: today’s audience is not seeing that as a fault of his, but as his attraction. And seriously, if you are a fan of T.V. shows such as South Park, any of the movies of Will Ferrell or Seth Rogen, or the Hip-Hop ‘music’ of Beyonce’, or Rap – any one of which would have gotten you slapped (if not challenged to a duel) by any major figure from George Washington’s time, through to Harry Truman’s – and yet you somehow still expect the political world to continue by those rules, while you yuck it up with the ‘best’ of modernity? Sorry, but I doubt if you’re even convincing yourself on that one, and you look ridiculous (and not a little bit manipulative and deceptive) trying to influence others to buy into it. Stop it. Pick one world or the other – you can’t have both.

    Similarly, what once would have drawn mass outrage nationwide, a candidate for representative, physically body slamming a news reporter, drew little more than ‘ho-hums’ from coast to coast – not because people think it was okay, but because they are tired of the entire show. People aren’t willing to play along, as faux-reporter Jonathan Pie said, ‘anymore!’, and they resent The Showmen’s ‘laugh track’ trying to prod them on. Trump is advancing and prevailing today, because he fits in with today, while his opponents – Left and Right – have tied themselves to a world that was canceled decades ago. Reality T.V.  star Trump, is brazenly doing to The Showmen, what their own Eddie Haskels’ have been surreptitiously doing to us all for decades. He’s flipped Rule #4 on them and has been holding them up to their own pretensions, by both fair means and foul, and America has been voting them off the Reality T.V. island, and their audience participation has been loudly and raucously delivering the line: “Your fired!“.

    The Showmen are victims of their own success in fundamentally transforming the world, but ironically, their Brave New World is one which someone like Donald Trump is far better suited to performing in, than that ‘Leave it to Beaver’ role they woefully miscast themselves into – as clearly, not a damn one of them actually cares for, or reveres, any of the fundamentals which that role requires (again: one who holds ‘Leave it to Beaver’ dear, does not march about in vagina costumes, or wear pink pussy hats, or praise those who do), and the Youth, the Millennials, just as attuned to hypocrisy today, as the young have always been, see more than enough hypocrisy in the Faux-Cleavers. How many Professors spouting Marxist tripe while pulling down six figure salaries, or socialist enthusing senators who own three houses, or ‘Truth to Power!‘ speaking newscasters like Dan Rather, or Brian Williams, being caught out with their forged documents and outlandish stolen valor lies, do you think they need to see, before questioning their credibility? Trump, believe it or not, is credible, because he clearly glories in all the faux-cleavers disdain – his money, his toys, his wives – and he is blunt, unabashedly insulting, and most of all, has become wildly successful by doing it. He may wear a suit & tie, but no one, least of all himself, sees him as ‘Ward Cleaver’, but as an Al Bundy done good.

    And yet the Showmen are still trying to pull their same old faux-outrage schtick on ‘the Trumpian Right’, unaware of how ridiculous they appear. Remember the faux-Cleaver newscaster Jonathan Pie:

    “…Being offended, doesn’t work anymore! Throwing insults doesn’t work ANYMORE!…”

    They came to war with The Donald, armed with tried and true tactics that were developed for a generation of Americans which now hardly even exists, outside of those who’re only pretending to be them. Much to their surprise, when Donald ‘Al Bundy’ Trump walked onto the stage, the viewing audience almost reflexively began roaring their approval of his every move, because it mirrors what they’ve grown accustomed to, and enjoy, and ‘love’.

    In short: The Eddie Haskell Left, found themselves trying to shame Al Bundy, and got themselves punched out – to the roar of the crowd.

    It is funny, but before we spend too much time laughing at them, those of us who aren’t caught up in either show, need to consider what happens when what were once the tactics of radicals, are now no longer considered either radical or effective.

    Which do you think is more likely – that the frustrated radicals are going to peacefully fade away, or that they’re going to violently ratchet things up?

    Mistaking ‘Progress’, for ‘Pro-Regress’, has its consequences, and fundamentally transforming a society that you never understood to begin with, is an inherently volatile process, one which has left The Showmen and their obsolete ‘Rules for Radicals‘, flailing about in front of an audience that’s grown more used to Al Bundy, Beyonce and South Park, than anything from 1950’s T.V. (except maybe for Twilight Zone), and I’m sorry, but I just can’t help LMAO at them.

    But what now? What follows after that? Once you’ve fundamentally transformed the ground that you’re standing upon, into something new and unstable – what then? We’ll get to that, in the next post.

Posts navigation