In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Can This Country Be Saved?
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Can This Country Be Saved?
by Paul Hein
Get a gun! Get it soon, and learn how to use it. Crime is rampant; it is getting worse, and you will need to protect yourself. The organization intended to provide for the protection of your rights cannot, and will not, do the job.
Government, in other words, is not going to protect you or your property. The reason why it cannot is because it is lawless. The Founders believed, perhaps naively, that you could, with little help from government, protect yourself. But they instituted government, empowered by the delegation of power from the people, to be the ultimate guardian of your rights. That was and is the ultimate law: The government exists to protect the rights of the people, primarily by punishing wrongdoers. The government no longer gives a damn about that; it is a wrongdoer itself. So get the gun.
This is virtually self-evident in federal matters. Consider that our president has announced that he is going to remove the legitimate government of Iraq and replace it with one satisfactory to us. However villainous Saddam may be--as bad as the rulers of, say, China--he hasn't raised a hand against us. He invaded Kuwait with our tacit permission; we have responded to that entrapment by killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and seem determined to kill thousands more to depose him. Can our leaders possibly be sincere when they express horror at the thought of more terrorist attacks? If they wanted such attacks, they could hardly be more effective at bringing them about.
But a contempt for the law thrives at lower levels of government as well: for instance, Arizona. The governor of that State, Jane Dee Hull, a Republican, has signed into law a bill that would take away the right of faith-based organizations "to follow their religious tenets about contraceptive coverage." Orthodox Catholics (both of them) consider contraception sinful. So Catholic groups, like the St. Vincent de Paul Society, a charitable organization, do not provide "contraceptive benefits" as part of the health package for their employees. At least, they didn't in the past. Now, in Arizona, as well as in California, they will be "legally" required to do so. Governor Hull, a "Catholic" herself, did not sign the bill with the least reluctance. She wrote, "In this era of government encouraging faith-based organizations to provide services to the community, we require that the assistance be provided to people who do not share the organization's religious beliefs." (Emphasis in original) It is hard to see how artificially rendering women sterile is a "service to the community," but not, I guess, if you're a politician. Evidently, Hull finds it outlandish-indeed, totally improper--for an organization to decide for itself what "benefits" it will provide for its employees. Equally ridiculous, it seems, is the idea that anyone seeking employment at such an organization can look elsewhere if not satisfied with the benefits package.
The Constitution of Arizona declares that "toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured to every inhabitant of this state, and no inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship, or lack of the same." In addition, there is an Arizona statute that presumes invalid any law that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise. Oh, so what! Our rulers know how we should live, and they have, long enough, tolerated our own quirky preferences as to how we lead our lives. Enough of that!
But if a Catholic religious organization can be compelled to provide services that it believes to be morally wrong, can Catholic hospitals continue to refuse to provide abortions for women who show up at the door demanding that their unborn children be killed? Why should such women be expected to go elsewhere, when women seeking work at Catholic organizations don't have to go elsewhere to get oral abortifacient/sterilizing pills as part of the "health" plan? Is it an exaggeration to say that the ultimate goal of such as Hull is the destruction of the Catholic Church?
Well, even if that seems to you like a good idea, is it part of government's job? After all, you would expect the government to protect your church from attack; how can it have the power and authority to destroy mine, without having a similar power towards yours? I won't embarrass you by asking you where in the Constitution the government is authorized to attack religion, or at least a certain religion; after all, we both realize that the Constitution is a dead letter. But in that case, to whom do you look for protection, should you find yourself on government'* list?
So get the gun! When the government itself is lawless-indeed, even expressing contempt for the law--it's every man for himself. I'm tempted to say, "God help us!" but I might be arrested.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Hein/hein30.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
by Paul Hein
Get a gun! Get it soon, and learn how to use it. Crime is rampant; it is getting worse, and you will need to protect yourself. The organization intended to provide for the protection of your rights cannot, and will not, do the job.
Government, in other words, is not going to protect you or your property. The reason why it cannot is because it is lawless. The Founders believed, perhaps naively, that you could, with little help from government, protect yourself. But they instituted government, empowered by the delegation of power from the people, to be the ultimate guardian of your rights. That was and is the ultimate law: The government exists to protect the rights of the people, primarily by punishing wrongdoers. The government no longer gives a damn about that; it is a wrongdoer itself. So get the gun.
This is virtually self-evident in federal matters. Consider that our president has announced that he is going to remove the legitimate government of Iraq and replace it with one satisfactory to us. However villainous Saddam may be--as bad as the rulers of, say, China--he hasn't raised a hand against us. He invaded Kuwait with our tacit permission; we have responded to that entrapment by killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and seem determined to kill thousands more to depose him. Can our leaders possibly be sincere when they express horror at the thought of more terrorist attacks? If they wanted such attacks, they could hardly be more effective at bringing them about.
But a contempt for the law thrives at lower levels of government as well: for instance, Arizona. The governor of that State, Jane Dee Hull, a Republican, has signed into law a bill that would take away the right of faith-based organizations "to follow their religious tenets about contraceptive coverage." Orthodox Catholics (both of them) consider contraception sinful. So Catholic groups, like the St. Vincent de Paul Society, a charitable organization, do not provide "contraceptive benefits" as part of the health package for their employees. At least, they didn't in the past. Now, in Arizona, as well as in California, they will be "legally" required to do so. Governor Hull, a "Catholic" herself, did not sign the bill with the least reluctance. She wrote, "In this era of government encouraging faith-based organizations to provide services to the community, we require that the assistance be provided to people who do not share the organization's religious beliefs." (Emphasis in original) It is hard to see how artificially rendering women sterile is a "service to the community," but not, I guess, if you're a politician. Evidently, Hull finds it outlandish-indeed, totally improper--for an organization to decide for itself what "benefits" it will provide for its employees. Equally ridiculous, it seems, is the idea that anyone seeking employment at such an organization can look elsewhere if not satisfied with the benefits package.
The Constitution of Arizona declares that "toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured to every inhabitant of this state, and no inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship, or lack of the same." In addition, there is an Arizona statute that presumes invalid any law that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise. Oh, so what! Our rulers know how we should live, and they have, long enough, tolerated our own quirky preferences as to how we lead our lives. Enough of that!
But if a Catholic religious organization can be compelled to provide services that it believes to be morally wrong, can Catholic hospitals continue to refuse to provide abortions for women who show up at the door demanding that their unborn children be killed? Why should such women be expected to go elsewhere, when women seeking work at Catholic organizations don't have to go elsewhere to get oral abortifacient/sterilizing pills as part of the "health" plan? Is it an exaggeration to say that the ultimate goal of such as Hull is the destruction of the Catholic Church?
Well, even if that seems to you like a good idea, is it part of government's job? After all, you would expect the government to protect your church from attack; how can it have the power and authority to destroy mine, without having a similar power towards yours? I won't embarrass you by asking you where in the Constitution the government is authorized to attack religion, or at least a certain religion; after all, we both realize that the Constitution is a dead letter. But in that case, to whom do you look for protection, should you find yourself on government'* list?
So get the gun! When the government itself is lawless-indeed, even expressing contempt for the law--it's every man for himself. I'm tempted to say, "God help us!" but I might be arrested.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Hein/hein30.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
by Edgar J. Steele
June 9, 2002
"Civilization involves subjection of force to reason, and the agency of this subjection is law."
--Ezra Pound, The Future of Law (1937)
"...a government of laws and not of men."
---John Adams, Declaration of Rights, Massachusetts Constitution, 1780
"The historic phrase `a government of laws and not of men' epitomizes
the distinguishing character of our political society....[L]aw alone saves a
society from being...ruled by mere brute power however disguised.
If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law,
every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny."
--Justice Felix Frankfurter, US Supreme Court, concurring in
United States vs. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258 (1947)
In principle, ours is a government of laws, and not of men, as enunciated by John Adams when he penned the historic Declaration of Rights, which became a part of the Massachusetts Constitution. He thereby first framed the thrust of what Thomas Jefferson was to enshrine in the Declaration of Independence.
Adams, Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and George Mason (the unsung hero amongst our founding fathers) were among the vocal advocates of a Bill of Rights, and instrumental in turning federalist James Madison around on including them in the US Constitution. Of course, most refused to sign the Constitution until they were included, but that is largely forgotten.
And, for nearly 200 years, so it was. That was then, as they say, and this is now, however.
Today, ours is a government of men, at virtually every level and throughout the country (I refuse to use the term "republic" to describe what America has become). And we are seeing the beginnings of the chaos about which Justice Frankfurter spoke. Indeed the tentacles of the tyranny he said would follow are interwoven into the chaos, and more evident every day.
For the longest time, law did save our society from being "ruled by mere brute power however disguised," just as Frankfurter surmised. No longer, however.
Men formulate new laws at a record pace. Other men interpret them and still others apply them. Not just the laws are different now, but their application differs from place to place and depends upon who is applying them.
Just look at what Bush the Second has just done with his nascent Homeland Security organization. It comes more and more to resemble the Nazi Third Reich with each passing day. And the reasons given for the changes are all but identical to those with which Hitler lulled the German population just after he assumed power.
"If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can," said Frankfurter, one of the giants of American jurisprudence.
Bush declares war, supposedly the province of Congress.
The courts make law, also supposedly the province of Congress.
Of course, so does Bush (and his predecessors) make law via Executive Orders, which were designed merely to clarify administrative procedures.
Agencies and departments at every level of local, state and federal government generate, as their main product, a virtual maelstrom of rules and procedures, all of which are given the weight of law when hailed into court.
Daily, state and federal legislatures generate reams of new laws.
It has become literally impossible to be alive in America without breaking some of these laws on a daily basis.
Nobody any longer seriously disputes that the Constitution has been stood on its head.
Rapists get probation and murderers walk in six, yet a joint will get you ten in many states. Say the "N" word and go to jail. Spank your kids and lose them, then go to jail.
The prison population has mushroomed far beyond the general population's growth.
In my day, every high school graduate could read, write and do sums. Twenty years ago, they were still graduates, but could do none of those things well. Today, not even the teachers can spell.
Children are medicated at triple the rate of even ten years ago.
The dollar is worth a fraction of what it was, even ten or fifteen years ago, and sinking fast, thereby guaranteeing those on fixed incomes future poverty.
We have brought the Middle East terrorists to our shores with our intrusive foreign policies.
Chaos? You be the judge.
Tyranny? One man's tyranny is another's nirvana, with an infinity of stopoffs in between. There is a substantial segment of the American public, myself included, that believes tyranny has become the rule of the day. Regrettably, things can become much worse.
What's worse, there is no turning back. While we were busy making a sandwich during the commercial break, America's government underwent a coup. It began with JFK's demise (some push the beginning back prior to WWII, still others to the very start of the last century) and is now complete with the pronouncements of the moneyed crowd running things right out in the open, directly and via their bought-and-paid-for officials, "elected" by us.
The interests that were protesting during the Viet Nam war era have now consolidated their seizure and control of all the levers of power in America, make no mistake.
They are the ones making war on so many, both at home and abroad. That sound you hear is them tightening the screws. Control freaks, every one. A government of men, replete with the tyranny feared by the founding fathers and foretold by Justice Frankfurter.
Hear the footsteps? They are coming for somebody today. Maybe you, maybe me, maybe some guy whose name we can't pronounce. But they are coming for somebody, of that you can be sure. And it won't be the last...not by a long shot.
New America. An idea whose time has come.
http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/men.htm
-ed
"I didn't say it would be easy. I just said it would be the truth."
- Morpheus
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878