Wednesday, January 12, 2011

The Revolutionary Gene Pool: it's who we are

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred - right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." - Abraham Lincoln

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly 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. But 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." - US Declaration of Independence

Though it is hard to imagine such foresight, we now have exactly the kind of society envisioned by the founders of this republic. The government, however, may be another story. What was a tragedy and a criminal act in the Tucson AZ shootings has become a political flash point. Democrats and Republicans, news media and bloggers, and just about everyone in between has tried to capture this horrendous moment and use it as an opportunity to do little more than to advance a political agenda. Even worse, there are actually members of Congress who have dared to suggest the need for federal regulations to curb "hate speech", failing to realize that by their very rhetoric they are only adding fuel to an already out-of-control fire.

US Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, according to, made reference to former Senate candidate Sharron Angle's call to employ "2nd amendment remedies" in suggesting a change in the "nation's political dialogue - by will or by law". Since the congresswoman's comments indicate a lack of "will" on her part, it seems clear she is suggesting the law as a remedy to control ... what? Free speech? There is, even now, a free speech decision pending before the US Supreme Court involving one of the most hateful crews in the United States - the Westboro Baptist Church folks who have made a name for themselves in picketing the funerals of service members killed in action and who will be picketing funerals in Arizona. Does this congresswoman even read the news?

If it is true that the Republican-controlled US House will require that all bills meet a constitutional standards and citation requirement, it would be interesting to see how a member of this same Congress would attempt to side-step that requirement or justify the need to ignore such constitutional mandates. Like it or not, our constitution requires that this congresswoman - and every member of the US Congress - as per her oath of office, to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America". This Constitution is, in fact, THE rule of law especially as it pertains to the limits of power within the federal government, limits this Congress has clearly exceeded for many years now.

Further federal restrictions on the purchase of guns will also fall short given that gun ownership has been deemed a "right" by the US Supreme Court as specifically outlined in this same Constitution. It is ironic that the militia to which the 2nd amendment refers has its grounding and reasoning in the need for a militia to help protect the community from an overbearing government, and it is an existing overbearing government that would move to take these guns from their lawful owners.

This nation was founded not on principle but on revolution. This nation traded one tax for another, one king for another, one set of laws for another, and it was done with the full knowledge that the Crown of England would not let the Declaration go unanswered. So we fought; and with the aid of the French, we won our coveted independence from England - and immediately moved to surrender our independence a little at a time to what is now a government that has far exceeded King George's reach.

There was a day, as Sarah Palin recently mentioned, when political disputes were settled by dueling pistols. We have grown a little since then and have become a little more civilized, but not by much. The Tea Party influence has been a continuing thorn in the side of the Democrats and others who believe the federal government can solve all problems by regulation and it has been accused of enflaming political rhetoric, but it might be more appropriate to suggest that this overbearing government that is far from "the people" has earned the challenge that goes back to the principles of this nation's founding: "exercising their right ... their duty to throw off such government" not by armed insurrection but by the ballot box.

This nation can be said to have come full-circle from its founding. A need for less government intrusion has been identified, and "revolution" has been justified. For the time being, it is only the means by which revolution is employed that has changed. The end has become necessary.

No comments: