Sunday, December 04, 2005

"Do You Bruce, Take......."

It never ceases to amaze me that when a court orders some legislative body to fix a Constitutional oversight in any given state, that certain people who have an agenda they wish to espouse come forth and protest, with great vigour and much posing, for the cameras and then proceed to show the depths of their ignorance where the Constitution and our Founders are concerned. When our Founders gathered in congress to decide what sort of nation they would bring forth, they decided, one and all, that we would be something unique upon the face of the Earth. They would create a nation based upon the rule of law and the proposition that all men, (and women, by extension) were created equal in the eyes of the law. The rule of law which they set forth, based upon the works of the greatest minds in history, have seen that rule expanded to cover people once held in bondage as slaves, expanded to cover and comfort. as best as is possible, the people from whom so much of this country was taken. It covers the immigrant fleeing the wrathful hand of the tyrant or king. It shields the man and woman of differing racial backgrounds who fall in love and marry, for they, like all citizens of this country are treated equally under the rule of law.

But, this does not hold true where some are concerned. There are segments of our population who are not treated as equals under the law. They are not allowed the basic privileges given to their fellow Americans as a matter of course. If their loved one lies ill in a hospital bed they have no rights to visit, to instruct as to their care and wishes. If their helpmate dies they have no property rights that they have not had to beg the state for. If they have children the state, at the behest of certain agenda harbouring individuals, may come forward and seize the children, despite the best of home conditions. In the legal system one's significant other may be forced to testify against their loved one, unlike other couples afforded the legality of spouses not being forced to testify against each other.

Yes, friends I am talking about our fellow citizens who are homosexual, be they male or female. They do not currently have the same, full rights under law that you and I, as heterosexuals do. And that is a slap in the face for our Constitution, the men who devised it and the many who have sacrificed their lives, fortunes sacred honours to defend it.

I know that at this very moment some of you readers can feel veins throbbing in your heads and your teeth hurt from the grinding they are doing but I need you to step back, take a breath and set aside your preconceptions of what is, and is not, Constitutional. Not one single person can, in good conscience say that another American should be denied their basic rights, especially those enumerated in the Amendments to the Constitution we know as the Bill of Rights. Our Founders enumerated the most important of our basic, Universal Rights in that section and they also let it be known, via the 9th and 10th Amendments, that every other right not listed belonged to the people, (that's us, folks).

We heterosexuals enjoy many rights in common with our spouses without the necessity of jumping through hoops to attain those rights, (or jumping through hoops attempting to gain those rights only to have some pencil pushing bureaucrat deny them to us). We may exchange and dispose of property at will, without the interference of the State or lawyers (in most cases).
We may dictate to physicians what type of treatment our spouses shall receive, who is, or is not to visit, when care may be suspended or halted (as long as we are not in Florida), and what shall be done with our spouse in the event of a catastrophic illness. Our fellow citizens who are gay do not enjoy this basic right, no matter how long, how committed, or how strong their relationship. I know gay couples who have been together longer than my wife and I have been married and it pains me to see that they cannot share in the same basic rights as we do. And it is all because the State will not grant them the same sanction that they granted to me and my wife, or that was granted to you and your spouse.

In recent years activists, (that's not a bad word, folks) in the gay community, along with civil libertarians have lobbied the various States in order to secure these basic rights for their fellows. In some cases they have enjoyed moderate successes but, all too often they have met with failure. Not for any moral or ethical reasons but for the simple reason that the legislatures, courts, and their fellow citizens are ignorant of basic Constitutional writings. Our Founders wrote the Constitution so that every man and woman could read it and understand it. There was to be no defining of what "is" is. It was written in English in such a way that the "common man" could understand it. Politicians obviously are among the Constitutional illiterati, as are many judges and an overwhelming majority of the modern day citizenry of our country. Let's take a quick look, shall we?

Amendment IX

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

Amendment 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.

So, where does it say that we shall deny our fellow citizens the rights accorded to their peers? It doesn't say it anywhere. But it is certainly implied that our homosexual citizens should enjoy the same State granted rights as heterosexuals, doesn't it? I don't see any mention at all of targeted rights, or rights for heterosexuals only. Do you?

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And, I really must ask you, what part of the 14th Amendment do so many people fail to understand? I don't see anything there, or anywhere else that says, "Unless, of course you're homosexual." The odd thing is that we, as a nation, have been here before. We have heard the rhetoric, the so-called morality arguments, the religiously based arguments and all the chicken little screams of impending doom and destruction. In the now famous court case of Loving vs. Virginia, in 1967 it was stated categorically that laws against miscegenation were unConstitutional. That freed people of all races to marry as they wished regardless of skin colour.

At the time of the first trial, the Lovings they were convicted of miscegenation by a judge who based his legal decision on the same type of "logic" that others are today applying to the issue of gay marriage. He, and all the anti-Constitutionalists of the day, ignored the fact that we are a nation founded on the rule of law, and not a backwoods theocracy.

It is interesting to note that many of the same organisations speaking out so vehemently today against the rights of our homosexual citizens are the same ones who spoke out against inter-racial marriages, civil rights for minorities, and racial integration in our schools just a few short decades ago. It seems hard to imagine that, in a new century, the same retrograde thinking that allowed some people to be kept at the back of the bus is alive and well.

I have heard many people speaking out against this issue. But, I have yet to hear even one argument against it which can be borne up by our Constitution. The majority of arguments against this are based upon religious beliefs as put forth by various people and groups with a decided agenda. And other arguments against it utilise logic in ways that no philosopher at any place or in any time could make sense of.

"Marriage is a sacred bond." I hear this one all the time. And yet, divorce rates are at all time highs and divorce is still legal (apparently none of these folks is prepared to outlaw divorce, which is obviously a vastly greater threat to the "sanctity" of marriage). The fact of the matter is that at one time in our history marriage was a church recognised bonding for purposes of love, property, and money. Nowadays, marriage is a State sanctioned bonding requiring the permission of the powers that be and churches have no say in the matter.

"Homosexuality is a choice and should not be protected by law." Given the way that gay people are treated in the many societies around the world I find this to be one of the more ludicrous statements to ever issue forth from the mouths of the masses. No human being would choose to be gay given the depredations inflicted upon them by their fellows, States, and societies. The fact that modern science has yet to find the genetic sequence which determines ones predisposition for homosexuality does not mean that it doesn't exist. I think many of these folks are just afraid that there is a gene for homosexuality and they might be carriers. Many of these same people are philosophically allied with the pro-life movement and I cannot help but wonder if they would change their stance on that particular issue if there were a genetic test which could determine whether or not their unborn children might be gay? It might also be pointed out that ones religion is a choice. Should we therefore strip away the protections afforded religion by our Constitution? I don't think so.

"They will be an added burden on (Social Security, the Tax system, the Insurance Industry, Small Business, etc, etc, etc...)." One: They already pay taxes and do not garner the same benefits and protections as their fellow Americans. Two: They already have money stolen from them for Social Security. Money that is given to SS beneficiaries who are heterosexual. Is that fair? As for the others...there will be no more burden for any of those than there is currently if they hire or insure a heterosexual. Any citizen who pays taxes is entitled to the same rights and protections as any other.

And as for the outlandish "slippery slope" arguments we have heard from some folks...I won't even address that foolishness in depth. Marriage is a bond between consenting adults, not animals and humans, not children and adults, not inanimate objects. If a legal recognition of gay marriage results in a recognition of polyamorous marriages then all I can say is, "So what?". As long as all parties concerned are consenting adults it is none of our business.

So, let's take a moment to think about the rights we share in common with our spouses, and those rights that our children share, or will someday share with theirs and see if it is possible to overcome a few personal prejudices in order to keep our Constitution strong, intact, and well defended. I am sure that many of our Founding Fathers would have found the subject of gay marriage to be personally distasteful, but I have read what they have written and I know that they, unlike many today might at least try to set aside their personal prejudices and uphold that wondrous document they had created. Liberty for one, is liberty for all.

Barring a complete separation of State and marriage, (something to be greatly desired) recognition by the States should not be impeded by anyone. Special interests, the Feds, industries, whomever they all need to stand aside and put their agenda aside in the interest of equal rights under the rule of law.

And as for the rest...a few words from one of your sponsors, "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me".

In Liberty.

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

The 6th Amendment And Durance Vile

Amendment 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 defense.

If ever any amendment to our Constitution has taken a severe beating, to the point of death, then it is a certainty that it is the 6th Amendment. No other Amendment is so routinely ignored by judges, lawyers, jurors, and the judicial system itself, as this one is ignored. The saddest thing is that no efforts are ever made to conceal the abuses of the 6th Amendment, indeed, it is so commonplace now, that most people take it as a matter of course that the abuse is the norm.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

This is one of the fundamental rights laid forth in the Bill of Rights by our Founders. An essential liberty that incorporates basic fairness, as well as fiscal and societal responsibilities. If an accused person is imprisoned until their trial then the State bears the responsibility of supporting that person until the trial, often at considerable expense to the taxpayer. And while that person is imprisoned their family also suffers economic depravation that may require them to seek public assistance for their very survival; this is especially so in the case of the poor. And when the accused has been released on bail this should apply as well, since the incentive to "jump bail" is much greater, even if they are innocent.

It is in the best interest of all parties, but especially the taxpayer, that trials be swift. Today though prosecutors will stretch cases out as long as possible in the hopes of cutting a deal with an accused person or to make sure that an appropriate amount of exposure is provided for the case by the media, thereby slanting public and jury opinions in their favour.

Many states have speedy trial laws in addition to the 6th Amendment. My current state of residence is one of them. A few short weeks ago I watched as a tough, law and order prosecutor completely dropped the ball and failed to bring case against an accused murderer to trial in time. The accused is now free, walking the streets and having, one assumes, a happy holiday season. Of course, the same cannot be said for his victim, may she rest in peace.

Since the advent of the USA PATRIOT Act even this fundamental right has been assailed. Recent trials of "suspected" terrorists have had large portions of their proceedings closed to the public, ostensibly for reasons of "national security". While this is within the bounds of reason for the court, it has been pointed out that it is the prosecution who has requested these closures. The right to a trial in public, as protected by the 6th Amendment, is a right which belongs to the defendant, not to the prosecutor. We are also endangering this particular amendment with the current administration’s continued threats to move the trials of "suspected terrorists" to secret military tribunals. The 6th Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because our Founders had seen the English Court of Star Chamber and the French lettre de cachet and the abuses these heaped upon basic liberties.

"…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...."

Other than the "impartial jury" section, this is one of the few parts of the 6th that sees relatively little abuse. The few times that a case is sent to a court outside of the area in which the crime was committed it is in an effort, usually in vain, to obtain a semblance of a fair trial. Finding an impartial jury, though, is a virtual impossibility in this day and age. With the sheer volume of information that is transmitted and seen on a daily basis by the average citizen the chances of a person being unbiased or uninformed in a jury trial is virtually impossible. When even the smallest crime makes the 6 o'clock news what is a person to do? Trust to the good will of their fellow man to be impartial in a day and age where everyone has a reasonably informed opinion?

"…to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor…"

Somebody get the ointment. This poor section of the 6th has taken the world's worst beating and has been left to die in the ditch. The Federal government, in collusion with state and local police agencies, has seen to it that this section of the 6th Amendment is, as far as they are concerned, null and void. I'm not going to cite case names and numbers for this, I will simply point you in the direction of virtually any "Drug War" case. Confidential witnesses, (historically known as "stoolies"), are commonplace in these cases and their identities are almost always withheld from the defence and the jury. Warrants are routinely issued on the "word" of "confidential government witnesses" who never have to attend the trial of the accused.

Following closely in the steps of these frequently used tactics in the failed "Drug War" are the prosecutors and federal investigators in charge of our latest effort, "The War on Terror." Most notably we have seen the Federal case against Zacharias Moussaoui, for complicity in the events of September 11th, 2001. The Federal prosecutors refused to allow the defence to call witnesses who are in federal custody at this time, in an attempt to clear himself of the charges against him. The Prosecution continued to argue against this, citing (once again) reasons of national security, despite the fact that there was no overriding, nor compelling reason to do so as any refusal is a violation of a defendant's 6th Amendment rights. One would think that the government lawyers who, we presume, attended a school of law would be aware of this, but apparently they are not. Of course the presiding judge was aware of it and had made it abundantly clear that she would not allow such a violation to occur in her court. Not to be outdone, the Federal prosecutors threatened to move the proceedings to a secret military tribunal, where Mr. Moussaoui will be given a fair trial, found guilty and hanged. Goodness only knows what the status of poor Mr. Jose Padilla is, or will be. He has no apparent rights any more, as we have seen by the new charges against the man.

"....and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

Fortunately, there are few judges that will allow someone to appear before them without having the assistance of legal counsel. Of course, if the federal government has you in custody as a "suspected terrorist" of some sort then all bets are off. You, like Jose Padilla, may have to wait years in secret prisons to get to the point were they will charge you. It has not been the policy of our country to hold a prisoner in durance vile. One must wonder what it takes in this new world order to gain access to legal counsel? Or to even be charged with a crime and have evidence and witnesses presented? The 6th Amendment is no help if you cannot even be afforded those rights afforded you by the 8th, as well, does it?

Welcome to our brave, new world. The Bill of Rights, Void Where Prohibited by Law.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005


There are a number of subjects that have been, and continue to stay in the news of late. One of them is the ongoing debate over the separation of church and State. This is one I have been reticent to tackle in any way shape or form due to the nature of the combatants involved in the dispute. But, a recent discussion between colleagues has somewhat changed my mind on the subject and I have found that I do have something I wish to add to the debate. It may not be new to the forum but it is a viewpoint seldom seen in the debate.

Forces on both sides of this conflict are constantly arguing about whether this is a nation of Christians or a Secular nation. Not being a Judeo-Christian sort by any stretch of the imagination, I am seldom swayed by the Judeo-Christian arguments. As someone who is also not an Atheist, (a "religion" in its own right in my view), I am also not swayed by many of their arguments, either. As a matter of course, neither party to the dispute manages to sway me in any fashion, whatsoever. It may be because I am coming at this from a totally different point of view that I see a major problem for the players in this game of political distraction.

Let's take a look at the argument. Judeo-Christian folks argue that the Founders were Christians and said in some of their writings that we were indeed a Nation of people who embraced Christianity. The other side argues that there should be no State acceptance or promotion of any one religion to the exclusion of others. And they are both correct. And wrong, at the same time.

For the life of me I cannot figure out why my Christian friends would wish the State to promote their beliefs, by placing copies of the Judeo-Christian 10 Commandments in taxpayer funded locations. I cannot believe that they wish their children to be allowed, or even encouraged to pray in government schools. Why my Judeo-Christian friends continue to involve themselves, (in their capacity as religious people), in the affairs of the State beggars my comprehension. The Judeo-Christian bible is rife with tales of what happens when people go about bothering the scribes, lords, ladies and kings in the name of their God. It never ends well.

For the last few years I have heard, time and again, that Christians are being persecuted. Well, there is some small truth to that. When they travel to foreign lands as missionaries and start messing with the happens. But, those poor souls knew that going into the game, martyrdom is sometimes part of the package. Domestically, there is no persecution tendered towards Christians from any other religion, (different sects do tend to non-violent persecution of each other). But, the Government persecutes all religions to some extent in their quest for control of the masses and their re-education towards Socialism. But that is to be expected..that is what happens when humans are given the power of life and death over other people.

But it seems that many, indeed most, Judeo-Christian sects have willingly given themselves over to the control of the State. In their efforts to avoid unfair taxation, (which a true separation of church and State would ensure) they have handed the control of their Churches, Synagogues and Temples over to the very people they were trying to escape from, by submitting themselves to specific types of taxation. Pastors, priests, rabbi's and priestesses all approach the altar of Government as beggars, pleading to be freed from the chains of taxation and readily accept new chains and stronger chains for their "tax exempt" status. When church run schools bow to the will of the State and submit to the standards of the Government they, once again, place themselves and their children into the hands of the State. Private church run schools? Hardly.

So why, I must ask, are you so surprised when Federal, state or local agents break down your doors and force you to submit to their will? Can there be any surprise when your protesters are cuffed, arrested and frog-marched to the paddy wagon for exercising their Rights to Free Speech? Or perhaps it is a surprise when they send tanks and agents to your church and burn it down, along with most of your pastors, parishioners and their children (and your fellows in the religious community say naught)?

Judeo-Christian sects in this country should be leading the battle to insure a true separation of Church and the State. A true separation that would lend itself to unprecedented levels of religious freedom; free from the chains of taxation, normal bureaucratic surveillance, State interference and doctrinal obedience to the State, a separation which would insure your right to worship as your Gods wish without interference from the State, and the assurance that you, and not the State, are capable of determining what is best for your children and your family where your faith is concerned.

Instead, many of the Judeo-Christian sects spend large amounts of time, money and effort attempting to secure a public place for their idols. Whether it is a crucifix in a public setting or sets of stone tablets on State run properties. One cannot help but wonder who they are truly trying to please. Themselves? Their god or gods? Or the State?

Attempting to convert the State is like trying to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and annoy the pig to no end. Those of us who've lived on farms know that eventually Porky is going to bite you. Hard. The State, the Founders and its adherents decided back in the days of Presidents Jefferson and Adams that America was not a Christian nation. And they ratified their decision to make sure that it stuck, (for those who do not believe it I would point you to the Treaty of Tripoli, copies of which can be found online at the Library of Congress). So, these folks are longtime secularists. It is best not to annoy them too much-they tend to shoot first, then burn second. Questions are only asked in closed committee.

If they are attempting to please their deity, well...that is a two edged sword, isn't it? When do a crucifix and a set of stone tablets cease to be objects of veneration and become idols? I would not presume to answer for the many and varied theologians out there, but I would hazard a guess that when these symbols start to appear in the evening news and on television with frightening regularity they are fast on their way to becoming idols, which are forbidden, (by the tablet on the left).

That leaves us with the first choice. They are trying to please themselves. Are thousands of basically good people indulging themselves in some strange rite to gain ascendance over their fellows? Or, as I see them so often accused of, attempting to plant the seeds of an American Theocracy? Or do they truly believe that placing idols in public will change the people around them and influence the State in some manner? I cannot say. But, I fear they are attracting the attention of a many headed beast that could suddenly lash out and do a great deal of harm, not just to the Judeo-Christian communities but to people of the many other religions.

The State has decided that it shall be a Secular entity. It has taken this decision for its own reasons and we had better respect that, for to do otherwise imperils not only ourselves, but our families, friends, communities and spiritual congregations. If some people fear persecution at the hands of the State you really have to wonder why they keep rattling the cage of this particular beast. Leave it alone and maybe...just maybe, we'll all manage to remain free and worshipful people for just a while longer. But, if you keep beating on the bars of the cage with your placards....don't be surprised when you get bit.

A church in Pasadena, California has recently been bitten by the feds for exercising their 1st Amendment right of free speech. Now, they're being threatened by the IRS for speaking out for peace and against war. Am I surprised? Nope. When you play with a devil, it invariably makes the rules.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Where Have All The Shelters Gone?

(This is a posting from the original Uncivil Defence, before I retooled. In light of recent weather related catastrophes I have updated it somewhat).

Where have all our Civil Defence Shelters gone and who is responsible for their destruction?

During the Cold War the United States had literally thousands of marked, well stocked Civil Defence Shelters throughout the country. Their purpose was to provide shelter for the citizens of this country in case of nuclear attacks on the United States. They were also there to serve as storm and disaster shelters. Beginning in the 1980's the US government began the systematic dismantling of the Civil Defense system, despite the fact that nuclear war is still a risk even after the fall of the Soviet Union. Individuals also ceased to build their own private shelters, despite the fact that when used as a storm shelter the insurance benefits are quite good.

Why, one must wonder were these shelters decommissioned, their supplies auctioned off or destroyed, despite the fact that the nuclear missiles of foreign powers still exist?

I am always consternated when a severe storm, tornado or hurricane strikes and people have absolutely nowhere to go except to a local school gymnasium. These places are deathtraps of shoddy construction with no supplies or trained personnel and yet, people flock to these places like lambs to the slaughter. Communities spend millions of dollars to install tornado siren systems, only to inform their citizenry that they need to hide in the bathtub. Many localities, (like mine) require new developments spend multiple thousands of dollars to build retention ponds, walking trails and "greenspace" to mollify the ecological lobby. But they won't even ask these developers to build a community emergency shelter.

Look at our recent weather related disasters. If ever the need for a comprehensive program of Civil Defence were shown to be necessary then this past year is it.

Now, as in the past we are in need of a Civil Defence program for our communities. Engaged as we are in a global conflict, assailed by terrorism on our own soil, bombarded by government warnings of possible radiological, biological and chemical attacks, as well as the ever present threats of storm and other natural disaster it only makes sense to re-ignite our Civil Defence programs. People need to have access to training, supplies and equipment. With or without the blessings of the federal, state or local governments we owe it to ourselves, our communities and our families to take steps to insure their safety should disaster strike.

People must become motivated as their parents and grandparents were in order to insure the safety of themselves and their communities. Local authorities need to be informed that old shelter locations must be refurbished, resupplied and reopened. If local authorities refuse then we need to engage our efforts in the private sector. Get our local businesses, churches and community groups involved. If a new Civil Defence program can be implemented without any government interference then that is all the better. Let them come to the private sector Civil Defence when THEY need help. And charge them.

Come and join me as I take a look at those who have made us a less safe place to live.....


Saturday, November 19, 2005

Real Men Don't......(Exist Any More).

Samuel Adams. Patriot. Brewer. Troublemaker.

Ethan Allen. Patriot. Soldier. Vulgarian. Troublemaker.

Benjamin Franklin. Patriot. Inventor. Statesman. Big old troublemaker.

Where have all the troublemakers gone to? In the days of our founding fathers the landscape was awash in rascals and troublemakers who were more than willing to take a stand against the tyrannical forces that were arrayed against the common American colonial. These people weren't politicians pandering for votes. These people seldom even wished the positions of power that were thrust upon them. And yet, they took that cup, drank it down and faced their opponents with a gusto that no man-made brew could ever offer.

Now, when we are faced with threats to the core liberties which were intended to have shaped us into the country we should be, is the time when we need true patriots more than ever. The system of government our forefathers left to us has been corrupted beyond recognition and reason. Legislated beyond measure and stripped of any meaning. Our Founders never intended that we should have a brobdignagian central government controlling our lives. And yet...that is precisely what has been forced upon us. Politicians have become our rulers, dictators in all but name. They are the decision takers who decide how much of your hard earned dollar you get to keep and whether or not you should be allowed to do with your properties as you wish, or even if you should own those properties. How, and by whom your children will be educated. Whether or not your sons and daughters will be sent to die in some other land. They take the decisions that force you to pay for the privilege of living in the home you purchased, ignoring the basic rights of Life, Liberty and Property.

There are those who will say that it's not as bad as I make it out to be. They would be wrong. Our trouble-making forefathers dumped a boatload of tea into Boston Harbor over a lousy 2% tax increase. A small increase that, among other depredations, started a revolution. Producers in America routinely pay over 30% of their hard earned wages in income taxes, often times more. Much more considering the hidden taxes tacked on to virtually every item on the market.

And yet, todays Americans are more than willing to tolerate their continued enslavement by their new, "elected" masters inside the DC Beltway, the State Houses and their local municipalities. Our population has devolved to the point where large segments are eager for enslavement, other parts are stunned into submission by the seeming hopelessness of the system and the remainder are looking for someone to save them. A troublemaker.

So where are our modern day gadflies and troublemakers? They're in front of their televisions watching "The Game" or doing something equally useful. There are a few who continue in their attempts to reform the system from within, they are the perennial candidates who run for whichever office is being offered at the time. These folks, with good, solid messages rarely win their races, but keep trying, despite the fact that our country's One Party System is not subject to change, (anyone remember the "Contract with America"? That sure worked out well, huh?) from within or from without it would seem.

The only people who have attempted to be "revolutionaries" have ended up as murderers and are either dead, awaiting execution or trial. What a sad day when what passes for a revolutionary in this country turns out to be no more than small gathering of sociopaths or a lone psychopath. Is it any wonder that those who do have the passion, the gusto and the willingness to attempt the fight so often quit before they even get started?

Who can withstand the onslaught of the mass media, the political pundits, the entrenched politicos and their talk-radio fed followers? What sane individuals would expose themselves to the maelstrom that would inevitably surround them, their families and their compatriots in that intrepid endeavor? Even our Founding Fathers would quail at the thought of what they would endure should they embark upon the task. Is it any wonder that no man, woman or group of quality has taken the task to hand and stepped forward? No. It is not.

Where would a modern day trouble maker even begin? Re-educating the masses, despite their wishes, warped viewpoints and love for the broken machinery of government? Vain and expensive runs at office in an attempt to illicit change from the inside? Maybe sandwich boards and a walk about town? The task is almost too daunting to consider. And yet.....

Someone must step forward. Many must step forward and, like their predecessors in the first War for Independence...they must do it for all the right reasons. Not for power. Nor for self-aggrandizement or the cheers of the masses. What needs to be done must be done not for the citizenry; nor for the country and especially not for the State it must be done for Liberty itself.

The troublemakers for this age must, like their predecessors be blacksmiths, prepared to reforge the shattered armour that is Liberty. The new gadflies must hammer Liberty and it's meaning into the very structure of this nation. The rust of too many decades must be chipped and blasted away so that the much needed repairs can be made. If it means that the structure of this nation must undergo changes in its fundamental architecture to survive, as gifted us then so be it.

But are there enough men, women and people of true and faithful spirit to accomplish, or even begin this endeavor? We must find out. At all costs, we must know. My mind tells me that they must exist in sufficient numbers to accomplish the task, no matter the method. And heart tells me that it may, indeed be too late. I am reminded of the not so old and highly overused saying..."Real men don't (fill in what you like)"....and my heart fills it in with..."Real men don't exist anymore".
I, like all mankind hate being wrong. But in this one instance....I pray I am wrong.

©10/02/2003 Michael Jarrell

A New Beginning

Some time ago I wrote a number of articles for a site called "Liberty-Rising". All the folks there were liberty minded individuals from a variety of backgrounds. Sadly, L-R is long gone but, the spirit lives on. Now, more than ever the things that were written there are needed. Maybe someone will read then, again. Maybe not. Regardless, they will be here. I am posting my contributions, updated where necessary along with my newest and latest musings on Liberty, Life and Freedom in a country racing towards totalitarianism.