Month: February 2013

I never though I’d be doing this! I am about to hand the GOP the keys to the kingdom — I wonder if they’ll use them.

Whether or not the Republicans believe they’re in deep dark serious WTF-level trouble or not, one things for certain: the “Progressives” are poised to run rampant, confident in their superior position. This position is strengthened — nay, aided and abetted — by Republican unwillingness to listen to voices of reason on their side of the aisle.

So, here’s a new dress for the inaugural ball, GOP. All you have to do is …

… come up with a new slogan!

Okay, it’s not quite that simple. Your new slogan has to reflect a return to your roots — a reconnection with your 20th century core philosophy.

And I propose this slogan: “The Party of Choice”

Hmm, that sounds familiar. Perhaps I need to elaborate. Pick an issue, any issue.

Health care, you say? All right, who’s the party of choice? The Democrats advance socialized medicine: a “one size fits all” approach to health care. Where’s the choice in that? So, Republicans: drop demonizing an already discredited approach and develop one where each individual picks, from a free market buffet table, the plan that suits them best. And what about the poor and indigent? With costs lowered by competition, everyone has more to spend; more people can afford it to begin with. Charities will benefit from a better economy. Health care costs will be reduced. Means testing will reduce fraudulent claims or “free” insurance. The possibilities are literally endless. (Maybe Michael Bloomberg will donate to causes that assist people instead of trying to buy control with his money!)

The list goes on. Republicans can create a platform consisting of three planks: (1) strong citizens; (2) strong markets; (3) strong defense.

(1) Strong citizens: we are endowed with unalienable rights — life, liberty, property. Government’s place is to cherish and protect those rights, not abridge, qualify, or infringe them. We choose to live our own lives without interference.

(2) Strong markets: we have the capability to be the strongest economy in the world, if we let the market work without government distortion. That rising tide floats all boats. The inequities in the current model are not market weaknesses; they are anomalies caused by the government-mercantilist complex. We choose to grow a vibrant economy.

(3) Strong defense: what other nations do is their own business, not ours. We have no authority to coerce, invade, or otherwise aggress against other nations and their people. We choose to focus on our own defense.

So what do you think, GOP? Is there enough life left in you to accept this line of reasoning? And you “Progressives”, where do you find fault, and why?

[I owe thanks to many people for the ideas expressed above. While they are not my own, I feel the need to express them in my own way. Unlike others who pay lip service, I really would like to “open a conversation” on these ideas, and I welcome any and all feedback.]

Promise me just this one thing: that you will read every word of this speech and think about it in the context of current events. Thank you!

At the Second Virginia Convention, St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia

March 23, 1775.

MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as  well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the  House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and,  therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if,  entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall  speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for  ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this  country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of  freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to  be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive  at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our  country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of  giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my  country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I  revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope.  We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of  that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men,  engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of  the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not,  the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part,  whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth;  to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp  of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And  judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the  British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which  gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that  insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not,  sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed  with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition  comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and  darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and  reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that  force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir.  These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to  which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if  its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other  possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the  world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has  none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent  over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have  been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try  argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we  anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up  in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we  resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which  have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive  ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the  storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated;  we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and  have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry  and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have  produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been  disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the  throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace  and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be  free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which  we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble  struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged  ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be  obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and  to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable  an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the  next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard  shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution  and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying  supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our  enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make  a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our  power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in  such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which  our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles  alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who  will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the  strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have  no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire  from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our  chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The  war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace,  Peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that  sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!  Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it  that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so  sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it,  Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give  me liberty or give me death!

---

Source:  Wirt, William. Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry .  (Philadelphia) 1836, as reproduced in The World’s Great Speeches, Lewis Copeland and Lawrence W. Lamm, eds., (New York) 1973.

What do you call a society in which private citizens are denied the means of self-defense, and only the para-military (police) and military forces are armed?

What do you call a society in which the citizens can vote for whomever they like, as long as they understand that the winner will inevitably come from Statist Party A or Statist Party B?

What do you call a society in which “government”and “business” control almost every aspect of the citizens’ daily lives?

Weapon Use by Offense Type In 2009:

An offender was armed with a gun, knife, or other object used as a weapon in an estimated 22% of all incidents of violent crime.

Offenders used firearms to commit 8% of violent crime incidents in 2009.

Robberies (47%) were the most likely crime to involve an armed offender.

Firearms (28%) were the most common weapons used in robberies.

Most rapes and assaults did not involve the use of a weapon.

From 1993-1997, of serious nonfatal violent victimizations, 28% were committed with a firearm, 4% were committed with a firearm and resulted in injury, and less than 1% resulted in gunshot wounds.

Source: “BJS” http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/

Firearm Injury and Death from Crime, 1993-97
October 8, 2000 NCJ 182993

Reports on the incidence of fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries that result from crime. Most of the data presented are from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vital Statistics and the Firearms Injury Surveillance Study which collects data on injuries treated in hospital emergency departments. This BJS Report includes descriptions of victim characteristics and circumstances surrounding the crimes. Data about the number of law enforcement officers injured or killed by firearms are also included.

Highlights:

Of serious nonfatal violent victimizations, 28% were committed with a firearm, 4% were committed with a firearm and resulted in injury, and less than 1% resulted in gunshot wounds.

Of all nonfatal firearm-related injuries treated in emergency departments, 62% were known to have resulted from an assault. For firearm-related fatalities, 44% were homicides.

The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.

Homicides committed with a firearm fell from 18,300 in 1993 to 13,300 in 1997, a 27% decline.

Source: “BJS” http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov

An “acceptable” position on the 2nd Amendment from my current representative, with my response:

—

Mr. Speaker,

The Constitution of the United States of America was written to put in statute the limits of government’s authority over citizens.

It does not bestow rights or permit freedoms upon American people. Rather, it delimitates what government of the people, by the people, and for the people can and cannot do.

Since well before our country’s founding, Americans have exercised the right to keep and bear arms, a right formally protected by the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791.

As a lifelong defender of Second Amendment freedoms, I am committed to ensuring that any new proposals considered in Washington do not infringe upon the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of law-abiding citizens.

In the wake of devastating tragedies, well-meaning people feel compelled to “do something” and the government, likewise, to intercede. But good intentions don’t often make good or constitutional laws, and they certainly are no match for those set on being lawless.

The Second Amendment reads, “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.”

If the text alone were not explicit, our Founding Fathers clarified the purpose of the Second Amendment. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 46 that Americans possess “the advantage of being armed…over the people of almost every other nation…[whose] governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Even more applicable to our current situation is this excerpt referenced by Thomas Jefferson which reads, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants…”

The rush to action in the wake of tragedies sadly heaps the price of criminal wrongdoing onto law-abiding, responsible gun owners.

When such is the case, government flirts with construing the desire to exercise Second Amendment rights as suspect behavior, it deems some Second Amendment utilities superior to others, and it ignores the root causes of mass violence focusing instead on the means by which violence is accomplished. Those mistakes must never be made. Federal proposals must be well-thought, data-driven, and constitutionally sound.

The right to keep and bear arms is not one for hunters and sportsmen alone. For centuries, it has been a right for every American citizen to arm themselves to defend their property and the people they hold dear.

And it is a right that cannot be infringed.

Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 5th District

—

My reply:

Thank you for your reply, and the attached letter. It is good to see that you clearly understand the purpose of the Bill of Rights. I can offer only one suggestion, controversial though it may be. The 2^nd Amendment’s primary purpose was to acknowledge the citizens’ right to defend themselves not (solely) from the predation of individuals, but from governments run amok. G*d forbid that such a case should ever occur, but the Founders, fresh from a revolution against tyrannical authority, were demonstrably sensitive to the threat of government oppression, as many of their writings indicate.

Thank you for your support of our rights, and for your representation of the people who elected you!

John C Taylor

First and foremost, we need to repeal the 17th Amendment. Yes, I know, there are much more immediate pressing problems, but the fundamental structure of the legislative branch was profoundly altered by this “Progressive” amendment.

If we want the states to resume their rightful place in the power structure as designed, the states must regain control of their senators. The people have their representatives; the senators were intended to represent the state legislatures.

This is a huge hurdle, I know, but it will be a “mine canary” for whether or not we can wrest power from Leviathan.

Once (if) accomplished, it becomes easier for the states — and the people — to rein in the excesses of the current legislative branch, and to restore the constitutional republic.

It should also send quite the message to the executive and judicial branches!