October 28, 2014 | Civil Liberties, Constitution, Founders, Militia
In the year 1813 Admiral Perry defeated the British fleet in the Battle of Lake Erie. Upon the surrender of the British, Perry sent a communiqué to General Harrison stating, “We have met the enemy and they are ours…”
Over the years there has been a twist made to Perry’s message that has slanted to, “We have met the enemy and they are us”. A more appropriate statement of what we as a nation have become.
In what is a long and arduous battle to defend our rights, enlighten the public, and leave my children a better and hopefully free world, I’ve encountered unbelievable resistance from almost everyone I’ve come across.
There are the few who recognize the facts, and learn from the lessons of history. There are those I’ve been able to sway with facts, but if you put this on a scorecard with my name next to it, I’d be optioned off to the minors. Fast!
Yes my friends, you are reading the words of a man who considers that his best efforts go almost for naught. It’s not that the opponent is great, but rather that the team is unwilling. I equate my circumstance to the pitcher who throws a no-hitter, and looses.
As I’ve published a number of articles, in which I refer to the law, and Dr. Edwin Vieira’s vast arsenal on the Second Amendment and the need for the revitalization of the Militia, I’ve found that even those who proclaim their support for liberty have nothing more to say than that this is going nowhere. In fact, those pretend supporters whose only claim to fame is keeping the fight going rather than winning have ridiculed me.
So I’ve decided that maybe I should pepper my articles with terms that seem to hold the most interest for the public at large. Notice that I’ve referenced team and no-hitter. In this manner maybe I could draw some attention to what I have to say, and maybe, just maybe I’ll hit the magic 300 after failing the previous 7 times. And I note 7 as the number of my boyhood hero Mickey Mantel. Perhaps one of the reasons he drank was because no one was listening to him either.
Ladies and Gentlemen, it is the bottom of the ninth, there are seconds left on the clock, whatever the measure you use to site the ending of your favorite sport, in which your team is behind. The opponents of liberty are knocking on the door to victory because we’ve given up the game plan, and we’ve fallen for the same feint that opens the boxer to the right cross.
I recently watched a youtube video, in which Dan Bongino was pitted against a Vincent Demarco. Mr. Bongino was courteous to Mr. Demarco, but had it been myself I would have called Demarco what he is, a blatant liar. What he presented as facts was nothing more than outright lies and propaganda.
One statement that Demarco harped on was that Justice Scalia’s claim that the states have the right to regulate the ownership of firearms, and that it is consistent with the Second. Scalia’s statement, as are most that come from the gutter mouths of those who infest the bench is pure nonsense. The court did in fact say that the state has such an authority, and I did in fact note when I originally read the Heller decision that the purely arbitrary regulation of the Second was contradictory with other rulings. Such a ruling is inconsistent in the definition of law, and would certainly come back to bite us right on the backside.
I point to a previous article I wrote titled “Five to Four”. I’m going to challenge anyone to intelligently define the law when the court itself does not agree. There appears to be a completely misguided, and obviously dangerous doctrine created that the law can be interpreted. Can a person with a logical mind understand that this is simply a means, by which the state will eventually interpret away rights, and convert them to privileges that can be regulated into non-existence?
Once again I must point to an article I wrote some time back titled “Its Just a Game”. In it I point to how ambiguity and interpretation creates a victor and the vanquished in a basketball game by manipulation.
This brings into question the meaning of the word ambiguous:
· Able to be understood in more than one-way: having more than one possible meaning.
· Not expressed or understood clearly.
We should also address the meaning of interpret:
· To explain the meaning of (something).
· To understand (something) in a specified way.
If someone claims to be the ultimate arbiters of the law, then tells me that it can be interpreted, then argues about its proper interpretation, I should be preparing for the worst. Ultimately, the rule of law dies, and for the life of me I can’t understand why anyone would subscribe to such outlandish notions that bring into scope ambiguity.
The Constitution is the law. What congress enacts is not law if it is contradictory to the tenor under which it was created. In other words, if an act cannot find its origin in a specifically enumerated power, then it is null and void regardless of who says what to whom.
The bigger problem stares back at us in the mirror every day. We’ve either given up, fallen prey to mounds of propaganda, or are entrenched in the system. We give validity to people who post the term esquire behind their name, or sit on a bench while wearing a black robe.
No matter what the interpretation, I am inclined to see the error in allowing a judiciary to make claims on the law, especially when it can, and most likely will affect my rights, and my ability to protect myself from the very same entity calling the shots.
There is no lack of historical data reminding us that government, no matter what form, or label that may apply is untrustworthy. This is not because governments, a fictitious entity of law is inherently evil, but because it must be run by your friend and enemy alike.
Because human nature enters into the equation, abuse is always in the cards. This is why the Constitution was written in a manner that specifically enumerates clearly stated powers under which the government may operate. There is no room for interpretation by a branch of government that may have agenda driven goals.
The Founders were clear in their minds on how this nation should operate. They prohibited the state from infringing on speech, the grand jury, and the petit jury. They forbade government from placing its heavy boot on the neck of the people by clearly stating that the infringement upon private property, and the security of the home were immune without due process of law as determined by our peers, not some created government office.
In addition to words that are incapable of enforcement, the Founders recognized and codified the institution that protects all our rights. The Militia of the Several States protects all our rights. Unless we are willing to embrace our duty, this fight will go on with the ultimate dismantling of freedom.