[2dogs]

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/03/gaddy.htm

Every 227 Years We Need A New One

By Michael Gaddy

Every year, as we near the 4th of July, I take time to reread the Declaration Of Independence and reflect on the courage and determination of the folks who laid it all on the line for liberty. Hopefully, we have all read the stories of those who sacrificed everything to bring this Nation into the world.
The beautiful but determined words of that document should speak to us all.

“…to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them…”

“…We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

“…they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

“…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

“…all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

“…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”

Stated so very eloquently above are the problems we are faced with again today, 227 years since this original declaration was presented.

God has entitled us to assume our rights to liberty and freedom. Our present government has devised scheme after scheme and bureaucracy after bureaucracy to take away these precious gifts derived from God, all the while claiming to know what is better for us than our Creator. There has been a not so subtle effort by this government to have the rights granted by our Creator made subservient to the god of the state. To add insult to injury, they use the sweat of our brow to give them the power and coercive ability to take those rights from us.

We should know, from the words of those who sought freedom from the oppressive nature of government all those years ago, that it is our “right to alter or abolish” the very source of this oppression.

We are told that it is human nature to suffer under this oppression rather than seek the God given rights to which we are entitled. But, the spirit of our founders admonishes us that we not only have the right to throw off the tyranny of such government, but are duty bound to do so.

Those courageous men of over two centuries ago cited the oppressions being visited upon them by the tyrannical government they were being forced to live under. Among them were:

“He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.”

Would the above not depict exactly the gerrymandering done by our government to insure their preferred “social mix” in our legislative bodies?

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

There does not exist a better definition of all the alphabet agencies this government has produced and their effect on our lives.

“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”

Simply said, the executive has done exactly this by waging war without the required declaration from congress.

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:”

The ”others” mentioned above could certainly be analogous to submitting our citizens to the laws of the UN, not to mention all of the unconstitutional acts we are forced to endure from the IRS, FBI, DEA, EPA, NEA, BATF, FCC and all the other liberty robbing bureaucracies, not to mention a Supreme Court that has totally overstepped its constitutional authority, even to the point of creating law out of whole cloth.

“For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:”

Could there be a more poignant description of the murderers who have been allowed to go on with their lives after taking those of Vicky and Samuel Weaver and the men, women and children at Waco?

“For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:”

Let us not forget for a moment the courageous acts of those who threw that tea in the Boston Harbor over a tax they considered to be confiscatory. (5%) With all the lifeblood of tyranny (taxes) we supply to the present day monster called government, can we even dare call ourselves patriots?

“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Could anything be more appropriate than a simple “Amen?”

Ironically, in the last paragraph of that glorious document, the term, “free and independent states” is mentioned twice. The tyrant better known as King Abe killed 630,000 folks to insure the destruction of that part of our history. Free and independent states we have not been for over 138 years and will never again be, unless somehow we can muster the courage and determination of our founders who pledged, their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

Do there exist today, in this nation, 56 patriots who would do the same?

[cameroneod]

Wow. Thats one hell of a post.

[RKCheung]

Actually, I don't think the United States consisted of "free and independent states" since the Consitution was ratified and today's republic with its stronger federal gov't (over the Articles of Confederation) was established.

[4v50 Gary]

The Declaration of Independence established the states severence from the Crown.

The Articles of Confederation made this nation into a confederation called The United States of America.

The Constitution created the federal government and through successive laws enacted by Congress and through interpretation of the Constitution and the laws we have the Federal Government of today.

The mess we have today required centuries of evolution. Did you know that Jeff Davis was never tried for treason. I don't think the Attorney General wanted to prosecute him since the Constitution is silent about withdrawing from the Union. A decision in favor of Davis would have given the South the satisfaction of being morally correct with respects to the succession issue - something that would open the wounds created by the rebellion.

[No4Mk1]

IMHO 4v50 Gary hit the nail on the head. The consitution is SILENT on the topic of secession.

Add to this the 10th ammendment, 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. and I find no reason to believe that we are not a republic of “free and independent states”, despite the obvious actions of the Federal government to the contrary.

I am no constitutional scholar, and stand to be corrected, but this is my opinion on the matter.

Edited to add: Exceptional original post and topic, by the way!!

[cuchulainn]

1) I find it amusing that those who pontificate most about revolution and "abolishing forms of government" often don't see the logical compartmentalizing of their empty fantasies. They hold up abolishing their form of government as a virtue while simultaneously growling at the great evils of votes, court decisions, etc. that work to abolish that form of government.

The sad thing is they ignore that bit about "experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

If their childish revolution fantasies ever came to fruition, the almost-certain outcome would be to speed the very tyranny they fear. I can count on one hand the revolutions through the history of mankind that were both successful and left the people better off -- we'd be very unlikely to be the next.

2) Richard Franklin Bensel does a pretty good job of demonstrating that the Confederacy was set up and on its way to having an equal or more oppressive central government as what we have today. See his book Yankee Leviathan; The Origins of Central State Authority in America 1849-1877, 1990, Cambridge University Press: ISBN 0-521-39817-7.

3) What I said last month in this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24417&highlight=masterbation) applies here.
There will be no revolt over rights. Period. Deal with it.

The sooner everyone realizes that the mythical "third box" has become nothing but adolescent, laughable fantasy and inane mental masturbation of the same ineffectual caliber as MMMer sheeple singing kumbaya around a campfire, the better off the RKBA will be.

Why? The first act of violent rebellion will be painted quickly and effectively (and perhaps correctly) as terrorism, and no one will be willing to even voice sympathy, much less help.

And we can't even get half the gun owners to vote RKBA. But these childish fatasizers expect them to run off to the woods* to fight for intangible "rights" and miss the new menu items at Taco Bell and next round of American Idol? Spare me.

Get off your duffs and double or triple your efforts to keep it from getting to the intollerable level because once it gets there, that's it. We will have lost.

*Yeah, great strategy: running off to the woods. Way to separate yourself from the people, making it easier to attack and demonize you. Oooh, look at me, I'm The Ghost in my swampland hideout. Better watch out Lord Cornwallis!

[bjengs]

I find it amusing that those who pontificate most about revolution and "abolishing forms of government" often don't see the logical compartmentalizing of their empty fantasies. They hold up abolishing their form of government as a virtue while simultaneously growling at the great evils of votes, court decisions, etc. that work to abolish that form of government. With all due respect, this approaches a "straw man" argument. To whom do you refer with "those?"

And since when did a vote ever "work to abolish" anything? What a ludicrous idea. Name me the great shrinking democracies in history!

There are many of us out here who believe in the logical extension of Thomas Paine's philosophy, who appreciate the writings of Thoreau and Spooner. I believe that a Constitution is a contract that none of us have signed, and I believe a vote is a permission slip for a jackbooted thug to haul off your neighbor in shackles for whatever action you and a certain number of your other neighbors have deemed unacceptable. I believe that abolishing this awful centralized, immorally sanctioned force known as our government would be "a virtue;" yet I "growl at the great evils of votes."

But this I can do only because I don't make the illogical assumption, again, that a vote could ever abolish centralized control.
There will be no revolt over rights. Period. Deal with it. That I agree with, wholeheartedly. A lot of the hardcore right-wing types insist that the "gutless liberals" like to stand on causes and work on emotion, but I don't see that the hopes of revolution that some RKBA'ers hold are any different.

When it becomes an imminently practical matter, the people will jump on board.

[spartacus2002]

wait another 10 years, when the baby boomers start retiring big time, and to pay the bill the social security tax on younger generations TRIPLES .....

[cuchulainn]

bjengs,

:)

Substitute the term "change" for the term "abolish," and perhaps you'll get what I was saying. (I used "abolish" because it was the term at hand.)

I have no idea if anyone one partcipating in this thread falls into the following category, nor did I say anyone did.

I made a simple observation. There is a type of self-styled "patriot" who growls at the currently slow abolishing of our 1787 Constitution and uses that change as a justification for the virtue of abolishing that Constitution quickly and violently.

There is a logical disconnect there: Change is evil, which triggers the need for change, which is virtuous.I believe that abolishing this awful centralized, immorally sanctioned force known as our government would be "a virtue;" yet I "growl at the great evils of votes."Whether by that you mean you'd find a violent revolution to be virtuous, I don't know (none of my comments have been directed at you). Regardless, the author of the starting post does hold up violent revolution as a virtue: See the second-to-last paragraph and the bit about "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor." That was the phrase used in bolstering people for violent revoltuion in 1776, and I can only interpret author's repeating it in an essay about abolishing the government as at least holding up violent revolution as a virtue (he never actually called for revolt).

Well, I don't see revolution as a virtue right now because it would be all but assured to do nothing but speed the very tyranny its proponents fear, and in the process kill thousands of innocent people.

Analogy: It is a virture for someone to fight a home invader. Nonetheless, it is not a virtue for that someone to set off a bomb that while killing the home invader, also kills him and his sleeping family and destroys all his property.But this I can do only because I don't make the illogical assumption, again, that a vote could ever abolish centralized control. 1) When did I say that a vote could abolish centralized control? It can (the 21st Amendment), but when did I say it?

2) In fact, the "votes, court decisions, etc." I was referring to are those over the past two centuries that have worked to do the opposite: increase centralized control (i.e. abolish state powers).With all due respect, this approaches a "straw man" argument. To whom do you refer with "those?" "Those" are the self-styled "patriots" I referred to above. As for the strawman bit, I was not suggesting that their dislike of the changes were right or wrong -- I simply was pointing out that there is a logical disconnect in saying "change is evil, which makes change good."

That disconnect is out there.And since when did a vote ever "work to abolish" anything? What a ludicrous idea. When the state legislatures voted to ratify the 13th Amendment, they abolished the state power to decide slavery.

When the state legislatures voted to ratify the 17th Amendment, they abolished their own power to choose senators and opted for the current method of popular vote.

When the state legislatures voted to ratify the 18th Amendment, they abolished state power to allow alcohol sales (and back again with the 21st).

When the state legislatures voted to ratify the 19th Amendment, they abolished the state power to forbid women from voting.Name me the great shrinking democracies in history! Why? It's not a matter of shrinking democracy, but of shrinking state powers and shrinking liberty.

In any event, FWIW, it could be argued that the increase in central power has been due to the growth of democracy -- the founders never intended this nation to be a pure democracy, but a constitutional republic.