No Longer Self-Evident?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.  They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government......

--The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

July 4, 1776

  

It wasn't that long ago that the truths mentioned by our founding fathers were self-evident.  They weren't up for debate.  We knew that we were endowed by our Creator with these rights.  The  government worked for us, not vice versa.  Somewhere along the way we lost sight of these truths.  We have allowed the government to grant us our rights.  The problem with the government granting rights?  The government can also rescind the same rights.  The government no longer derives its power from the consent of the governed (us).  The government   creates power for itself, if not through legislation, through regulation.  And we, the people, are allowing it and in many cases, even encouraging it.  

If our form of government is destructive to the people's unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property), and it is our right to alter or abolish that government, how we do we achieve that alteration or abolition?  That is where the first two amendments to our Constitution come into play.  

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Without the right to peaceably assemble, speak freely, and petition the  government; and the right of the people to bear arms,  it would be impossible to secure a free state or ensure the other rights granted by our Creator and guaranteed in the Constitution.  Without free speech or an armed populace, how can the people control the government as it grants itself more and more power?  We can't.  When we lose the rights guaranteed in the first two amendments, all other rights are granted at the whim of the government.  I don't think anyone, right, left, Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian are prepared for that eventuality.  Yet that's where we are heading at a breakneck speed now.  

When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.

--Edward Abbey

See What You See, Say What You See

One of the "gadgets" on my blog is right above the posts, random quotes from Ronald Reagan.  The quote that convinced me to add the gadget is "Don't be afraid to see what you see."  Fortunately for us, Reagan lived before political correctness completely overran our common sense.  When Reagan called the Soviet Union "the Evil Empire," Americans weren't afraid to see the truth in the description.  That is no longer the case.  Because of fear of insulting someone, or a particularly easily offended group, we progressed from being afraid to say what we see, to now, being afraid of even seeing what we see.  The most ridiculous example is "Muslim extremist."  It's was more than a year ago when Whoopi Goldberg walked off the set of The View because Bill O'Reilly described the 9-11 terrorists as Muslim extremists.  Our "Justice" Department, I'm assuming in the spirit of political correctness - they couldn't be that incompetent, could they?, described the shooting of U.S. soldiers on a U.S. Army base by an American Muslim soldier screaming "Allah Akhbar" as an incidence of workplace violence, rather than what it obviously was -  an act of terror by a Muslim extremist. We have a president who campaigns on a theme of redistribution of wealth, the very definition of Marxism, but we can't call him a Marxist.  He's only interested in fairness.  I won't give further examples of political correctness run amok, just the latest and its consequences.

This week, in Portland, Oregon, a 22 year old man walked into Clackamass Town Center, a mall packed with Christmas shoppers and started shooting.  He killed two people and seriously injured another, before reportedly killing himself.  The focus immediately was placed upon the gun he used, an "assault rifle."  Gun control advocates would have us believe that the blame for the crime should be placed on the gun.  If only Oregon had stricter gun control laws, this crime would never have happened.  The problem with this argument is that Oregon already has fairly restrictive gun laws.  To buy the gun, Jacob Roberts would have had to pass an federal background check.  He bypassed this requirement by breaking the law.  He stole the gun and ammunition.  The mall, like the theater in Aurora, Colorado, was declared a "Gun-Free" zone.  Persons who take a firearm onto property declared to be "Gun-Free" are breaking the law and subject to prosecution and penalties that vary by location.  Mr. Roberts broke that law too.  So how exactly will making more laws prevent actions by a person like Jacob Roberts from committing these crimes?  Obviously the law had no meaning to him.  We are afraid to blame Mr. Roberts for being evil?  A person who commits an act of random violence against people that he doesn't even know, has no reason for killing, is evil, PERIOD.  Why are we afraid to see that?  Why are we afraid to say that?  The second amendment did not kill two people.  Oregon's gun laws did not kill two people.  Mr. Roberts' friend who owned the gun did not kill two people.  The mall's Gun-Free policy did not kill two people.  Jacob Roberts killed two people. Are we afraid to say Roberts was evil because his friends and family described him as a "friendly," "adrenaline junkie," "video game player," who "just wanted to make you laugh."?  Were his friends and family afraid to see what they saw in him?  Were they afraid to see that he was troubled?  Afraid to really talk to him, to really get to know him?  Were there signs that he might be troubled, and friends and family were just afraid to see them?

The shooting of strangers by an EVIL deranged man in a mall was bad enough.  But yesterday evil struck again.  This time at an elementary school in Connecticut.  A man walked into an elementary school and shot six adults and twenty kindergarten students before reportedly killing himself.  Once again, the focus went immediately not to the killer, but to his weapons.  He was found inside the school with a 9mm Sig Sauer, and a Glock, both handguns.  A .223 Bushmaster rifle was found in the backseat of his mother's car in the school parking lot.   So once again, an evil and senseless murder is being blamed on an assault rifle, this time one in the backseat of a car parked outside the scene of the murders.  Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, the school, once again is a "Gun-Free Zone."  And the evil deranged murderer was too young to legally purchase either of the guns he used.  But many people, including the president are demanding that we "take action," i.e. pass laws, to insure that heinous actions like this do not happen again.  So once again, they are demanding that more laws be written to prevent people like the one who broke countless laws to commit this crime from doing it in the future.  Apparently just one more law would have stopped him in the view of the president and others.  As Einstein said, the "definition of insanity is repeating the same action, expecting different results."  So Rush Limbaugh makes perfect sense when he says that "liberalism is a disease," it's a disease that causes insanity.      Like the health care laws, EPA regulations, and tax hikes for the "wealthy," gun control is about control.  It's not a policy to solve any problem, it's a policy to control people or a group of people.  It's about eliminating choice.  As horrible as yesterday's crime is, as much as any of us want future crimes like this to be prevented by an easy fix, a new law will not prevent an evil person from committing evil acts.  The only way to prevent atrocities like this is for each of us to not be afraid to see what we see.  Adam Lanza is described as "troubled," exhibiting "autistic-like behaviors."  So were friends and family afraid to see his troubles until after he killed 20 kindergartners and 6 adults?  Were they afraid to say what they saw and try to get Adam Lanza some help?  The only way to stop this violence is to stop being politically correct.  We must see evil where there is evil.  We must say we see evil when we see evil.  We can't be afraid to say what we see, for fear of hurting someone's feelings, or damaging their self-esteem.   Inaction can lead to much worse.

So, what I see today is a country shocked by a horrible crime.  A crime that is so unimaginable that we absolutely must do something to make sure that nothing similar happens again.  But once again, a very large number of us want to take the easy way out.  Rather than taking personal responsibility, we want our "mommy," the government, to do it for us.  Blaming the weapons is an emotional reaction that is being reinforced by the president and the media and it is the lazy, easy way out.  Once again, the president and the media is counting on Americans being "low information voters" and useful idiots.  Yes, the idiots are being used once again.  Yesterday I saw almost everyone shocked and hurt by the actions of an evil lunatic.  I saw Americans imagining themselves in the place of those parents in Connecticut.  I saw media and the president's press secretary saying it's too early to bring politics into the discussion about the murders.  I then saw the same media, on CNN, MSNBC, and others immediately bring up the need for more regulations.  I saw celebrities like Alec Baldwin (his photo, along with Sean Penn's is in the dictionary beside the useful idiot definition) use Twitter to call for Americans to "stop defending your right to bear arms.  You're stupid."  Then finally I saw the president speak about the murders.  Most of us saw our own emotions and outrage reflected in the president's face as he spoke about the children and the fact that they would never experience life's events that all children experience.  We could see our own sorrow reflected as he paused, clenched his jaw to hold back the emotion he was feeling, the emotion we were all feeling.  For once, I could actually see the president had the same feeling and reaction that I did.  Then he wiped away a non-existent tear, and another, and another.  Then he made the statement I was hoping not to hear, but fully expecting, "And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."  I expect that his "meaningful action" does not involve personal responsibility, but instead more restrictions of the rights guaranteed in our Constitution.  Never let a crisis go to waste, as you fundamentally transform the United States, right Mr. President?

Just saying what I see again, I see a president expressing great emotion at the loss of 26 lives, 20 babies.  A president, who as Illinois state senator voted multiple times AGAINST, not his usual "present," but AGAINST  legislation that would require doctors to act to save the lives of babies born during failed abortions, babies born, living through abortion procedures.  The same president who campaigned this past fall that taking taxpayer money away from Planned Parenthood was part of the Republican Party's war against women.  Taxpayer money that funded 289,750 murders or abortions in 2008 alone, according to their own website.  So either he feels great sorrow at the loss of children taken by gun related violence, but not those taken by physical violence at the hands and instruments of a government funded murderer, or what I see.  I see a president that feels nothing about either.  He sees both as a crisis to be taken advantage of.  We have all seen many examples of evil in the past few days.

Just an update that has been published since I started writing this, Adam Lanza, the Connecticut murderer, tried to buy a rifle at a local sporting goods store two days before his killing spree.  He was blocked by the state's gun sale waiting period.  He stole the guns he used from his mother.  The door of the school was locked as required by the school's security policy.  Lanza broke a window beside the door to enter the school.  Laws and physical obstructions will not solve our problem, not a gun problem, a people problem.  Only we, individually, can fix a people problem.  Don't be afraid to see what you see.

And In This Corner.....

 As a boy growing up, I loved professional wrestling.  Back in the day before cable made professional wrestling a national phenomenon, it was a local production.  I discovered wrestling on one of the local stations out of Amarillo, Texas.  In those days, the local heroes were the Funk family.  They were led by the wrestling legend, Dory Funk who was semi-retired when I was a kid.  The NWA world champion was his son, Dory Funk Jr.  I rarely got to see his matches on our Saturday afternoon wrestling programs.  So my favorite and the favorite of all the boys in Gruver was Dory Jr.'s little brother, Terry Funk.  Wrestling was the ultimate story of good against evil, and the Funk family was definitely the good guys.  No one in their right mind would be caught cheering against any of the Funk family.

Dory Funk Sr. and Dory Funk Jr.

Terry Funk

After a few years of being a huge Terry Funk fan, my family moved to Graham.  One of my adjustments was the loss of my Saturday afternoon wrestling programs.  My Grandma Mae introduced me to Channel 11 out of Dallas and professional wrestling, LIVE from the Sportatorium!  I was really excited to see in the TV Guide that Terry Funk was going to be in the main event.  You cannot imagine how shocked and disappointed I was to learn that my hero, Terry Funk was the villain!  To make matters worse, the evil Von Erich's were the local heroes.  Talk about conflicted.  After living in Graham for awhile, I became a fan of Fritz Von Erich and his sons Kevin, David, and later Kerry.  Instead of practicing Dory Funk Sr.'s spinning toe hold, all the neighborhood boys became masters of Fritz Von Erich's dreaded Iron Claw.  

Fritz
Kevin, David, & Kerry Von Erich

No one in the Channel 11 viewing area would dream of cheering for any wrestler, other than one of the Von Erich's.  In the mid 1980's, pro wrestling went to a nationwide audience with favorites like Hulk Hogan and villains like Andre the Giant (another hero from my Amarillo wrestling memories).  The WWE exploded on cable channels and overtook the locally produced programs.  Wrestling became even more cartoon-ish with purely evil villains and purely good  heroes who eventually would win the hearts of the fans, even while losing matches due to incompetent referees.  Somewhere along the way, maybe because fans no longer had a "local" hero, things changed.  Fans split into two camps.  Of course the majority of fans supported the hero, the good guy, but some cheered on the bad guys.  The good guy was seen as too clean, too wholesome.  Pro wrestling seemed to push promote the villains even more than the heroes.  A large number of fans took pride in their support of the villains.  Eventually, this attitude seemed to bleed over into other sports.  In Texas from the 1970's through the late 1980's, everyone was a fan of the Dallas Cowboys.  People who moved to Texas from other areas might follow their former hometown favorite, but eventually they almost always became Cowboy fans.  Sure there were a few oddballs that grew tired of the way the Cowboys were worshiped, and became vocal fans of Bum Phillips' Houston Oilers, but they were rare.  But as the "pro wrestling" mentality became more prevalent, some football fans started buying Redskins' gear or worse, Steelers' merchandise.  Fans weren't necessarily cheering for a team, but they seemed to be cheering against the local favorite.  

When we moved to Colorado, I saw the perfect example of this attitude.  Of course in Colorado, the Broncos are the NFL team to follow.  At the time we moved, the Broncos weren't too far removed from their Super Bowl championships with John Elway as quarterback.  In the store I managed, Broncos' gear was the top seller, but it was followed very closely by the Broncos most hated rival, the Oakland Raiders.  The majority of the Raiders' fans weren't so much Raiders' fans as they were Bronco haters.  As a football or just overall sports nerd, I would talk about the Raiders, current or past and most of the Raider "fans" had no clue about their chosen team, either current or past.  I think it's just an example of the contrary attitude that most people used to outgrow after their teen rebellion years.  I think an increasingly large number of people no longer outgrow the rebellious stage, but take pride in their unique-ness.  

This attitude has spilled over from the entertainment of professional wrestling to legitimate sports, to the rest of everyday life in America today.  It's a little jarring to read history and learn about men spending the evenings in the local tavern discussing and debating religion, politics, science and so many other subjects from a base of knowledge.  Most Americans were self-educated.  They listened, they read, they were interested in gaining knowledge.  The quote from Emerson that I mentioned before, "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds," was a popularly held opinion.  A person's position on an issue should evolve as that person gains knowledge.  That no longer seems to be the case.  There is no longer a debate.  A person is a Global Warming believer or denier, a 9-11 truther or a Muslim hating Conservative, a Tea Partier or a Progressive, a baby killing pro-choicer or a woman hating right to lifer.  Having a debate about these issues is not a bad thing.  What is so destructive right now is how uninformed our positions are.  Rather than having an honest debate, we pick a side and defend it to the very end.  When the chosen side is not backed up by a base of knowledge, the debate soon turns to the name-calling we heard so much of during the most recent campaign season.  When opinions are not backed by knowledge, manipulation becomes much easier.  Honesty is not necessary if the public is not curious enough to do their own research.  

It is very discouraging to talk to people about the recent election and learn the basis of their choice.  It is almost never "for" someone or something, but "against" the other person or policy.  If our society is going to survive, we must have intelligent debate on issues.  We have to have intellectual honesty from ourselves and our candidates.  We have to force our politicians to be honest.  If they talk about the rich paying their "fair share," make them say what they believe is fair.  Is raising taxes on those making over $250,000 a year going to help solve our fiscal problems, or is it in the interest of redistribution of wealth (are they,  or are we honest enough to call it what it is - Marxism) to buy votes?  Is it all right for your candidate to listen in on cell phone conversations, or hold those suspected of supporting terrorists indefinitely without charging them with a crime, gather information from private e-mails, or to send our troops to war without the approval of Congress, but not ok for the candidate from the other side?  We need to read and learn enough to know what we believe and what we support.  Then we need to read and learn what candidates from all sides not only say they will do, but what they have done and are doing.  The sad thing is that we live in an age where all this information and more is easier to find than ever before in the history of mankind, we are just too lazy or uninterested to find it.  

I have seen interviews with a woman who said she thinks the president did an "acceptable job" in the Benghazi situation.  "Ben Ghazi is hard to predict, you can never tell what that man will do."  I have a friend who voted for Obama because Romney would cut programs that help single women.  But she works a job that pays her in cash, so she doesn't pay taxes on it.  I have relatives that vote Democrat because "I'm a fiscally conservative bleeding heart liberal."  How can anyone claim to be fiscally conservative and support the president and his $6 trillion and climbing debt?  I have another relative that when questioned about individual policies holds positions to the right of the most conservative Libertarian, yet votes Democrat every election because Republicans only care about the rich.  I know several people that didn't vote at all because there was "no difference between the candidates."  These are the pro wrestling voters, their votes have no basis in fact, only in emotion, or possibly in rebellion.  The political consultants call these people "low information voters."  Stalin had a more accurate, if less politically correct description.  He called them "useful idiots."