The Things We Dare Not Say

I have been frequently approached, especially in recent weeks since the Sandy Hook shooting, by folk talking about the relationship of the electorate to the government. One person has been considering the formation of a local militia for the purpose of having a ready force available to support the sheriff in the eventuality that it may be necessary - essentially a trained 'posse'. Of concern to him - and a legitimate concern which I share - is that this militia not morph into what he considers an 'anti-government' outfit. He referred to Constitutionalist militias as such. My question to him was if a militia (or person) is standing ready to fulfill the oath we have shared to protect and defend the Constitution, then how can it be anti-government? I would consider that a pro-government individual or outfit and any opposition to it would come from an entity that was not a legitimate government, but an illigitimate regime, as the 2nd Amendment clearly states that a well-regulated (properly functioning) militia is necessary for the defense of the republic and the freedom to exercise the natural rights of the citizenry the republic was formed to protect.

Last night a network ran a report on the Danish individual who was instrumental in the assasination of Anwar Al-Awlaki, one of several American citizens (including his sixteen-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was specifically targeted and assasinated two weeks after his father) who have been assasinated by the Obama regime. This story prompted a 'spirited' discussion between K and I concerning the rights of the people to replace a "government" which is not performing its duty to protect the natural rights of the citizens, but rather is engaging in a state of war against its citizens.

These principles are detailed in our Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*" These principles are based on the natural rights argument, primarily from John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government, in which he discusses the circumstance in which a "government" embarks upon a 'state of war', with the people: "... whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. ... [Power then] devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society.**"

I will elaborate on these thoughts in subsequent blog posts - my question for today is multi-fold: 1)What is the legitimate response to government to "speech" which advocates putting into practice the right of defense which the citizenry inherently possesses, being a natural right from our Creator? Is the proper response to assasinate that citizen with a predator drone or a CIA kill team as was done to Imam Al-Awlaki (assuming the hypothetical that the extent of Al-Awlaki's offense was running a website in which he advocated for violent Jihad against the "Great Satan")?

2)Does the right of free speech and a free press extend to this discussion and is this blog post itself an "alternative press" (alternative to the main-stream media which is admittedly being used as a propaganda tool of the regime)?

3)By initiating this discussion should I expect to have my door kicked in some dark night by a CIA/DHS kill team or might a predator drone vaporize me as I am innocently brushhogging the north 40 some fine spring morning?

Please join me in considering these important issues as the regime is assasinating American citizens at will and discussing how best to limit our ability to exercise the "common refuge against force and violence" Locke describes as the appropriate response to the slavery inherent under a regime exercising arbitrary power...if you dare to do so...and if you don't dare to discuss this - is this an acknowledgement of fear of government to exercise the very natural rights I discuss here?

The Terrible Two's and Mass Murder

I spent the weekend with two-year-olds - my grandchildren, Emma and Ian. Wonderful children, mostly a joy to be around - until a 'terrible two' tantrum arrives. It's that age when they must deal with the fact that the world does not revolve around them. I remember when my oldest was that age - I had just returned from a tour in Okinawa and while I was gone she had transformed from a little baby who kept you up at night to a beautiful little girl intent on tyranny and still keeping me up all night. She and her mother had been living with grandparents while I was overseas and when I returned we got a little apartment, I got a job and started college. But she didn't have a whole lot of sympathy for my sleep schedule and would stay up till all hours, creating chaos about the house when I needed to sleep. So, after observing all this for a few nights, I told her mother I thought she needed to have a bedtime, possibly an hour or so before mine. Her mother laughed and said, "oh, she wont go to bed". I was in a state of disbelief - the child couldnt weigh 20 pounds and I topped 180 or so - I felt pretty sure I could keep her in bed until she went to sleep and I went to slay the 'terrible two dragon'. After a few hours of screaming, with me laying in bed with her, physically preventing her from getting up, she eventually wore down and went to sleep. Maybe that's not the way the child psychologists recommend, but it didnt take more than a few nights of this and she figured out that when Dad said it was bedtime, there was no negotiating the matter and she enjoyed getting a story read to her and going to bed more than screaming herself to sleep.

This is not an easy thing to do and I observed with the more "energetic" of my grandkids that this had not been established in their house. The one whose nickname is Adderall Annie obviously had Daddy's number. "Dammit, you're writing all over me with that marker!" (Daddy takes marker) Adderall Annie, "(insert deafening screams)"...Daddy, (gives back the marker). Hmm...not to compare children to dogs, but the training is not too much different, except that dogs actually want to please, while children wish to tyrannize. If that were my dog, I would be going through life barefoot, I think.

I think this is the primary issue with these mass shootings. While I hate to jump into the pop-psycho-babble fray, it just seems impossible not to consider these things a disease whose symptoms are brought on by a society in which the terrible two's are just never dealt with. Setting aside for the moment the plausible conspiracy theories that these shootings are not what they seem to be and taking what we have been told at face value (self imposed naivete, I know), we have in most cases with these shooters all-too-common profiles: white youths, teens or young adults, raised by single mothers, "addicted" to video games, etc., etc. At the risk of outing myself as a "kids these days" old codger, I see the same "terrible two's" behavior in the Occupy protests. "The system is screwing us" - check..."the oligarchs own the politicians who run the system which is screwing us" - check..."we have no voice in this system which is run by the oligarchs who own the politicians who design and implement a system which is screwing us"...check again (tell me something I don't know - welcome to life, I am thinking at this point)...then..."so we need government to have more power over society so we can stop getting screwed over"...wha-a-a-t??? Your solution to a problem caused by politicians screwing you over for the benefit of their true clients (the oligarchs who fund their campaigns and control the media brainwashing the people into thinking their "solutions" will solve their problems) is to give EVEN MORE power to the system??? What's THAT all about???

It seems to me this is the convoluted thinking of people who have never been cured of the terrible two's. "I am owed success (after all, I got trophies throughout my little league t-ball/soccer/whatever "career" although I never scored a goal and my team didnt win a championship - hell, we werent allowed to keep score!)". "When I threw a tantrum (likely seeking the attention my overwrought, overworked single mother could not provide) I was given a magical fix of ritalin/adderall/whatever instead of a good old fashioned ass-whooping". "I am addicted to video games, which provide instant gratification in the form of moving to that higher level, too often in the form of the same type of first-shooter game which the military uses to train killers". "I have been conditioned through a lifetime of watching death, murder and mayhem to observe people being killed in the most horrendous ways, then getting up and getting myself a snack".

Both Lanza and Holmes, I have read, wanted to join the Marines, but the mothers refused to allow it because they didnt think they could handle it. Now, this is likely the case, but as the child of a single mother who went to boot camp as a 17-year-old over my mothers objections, I think, "Lanza was a 20 year-old living in his mothers proverbial basement - mothers "objections" be damned, if you think joining the Marines will provide you the real life challenge you so obviously needed, what is preventing you from heading off to Parris Island, son???"

So, I know this is a terrible over-simplification of a terribly complex societal problem. I know that all children of single mothers who have grown up getting "participation trophies", having their sense of morality dulled by the viewing of endless murders and being conditioned to kill by the same video games we use to dull the senses and heighten the capabilities of soldiers being sent to kill are NOT going to wind up gunning down innocent theater-goers or mere babies in a kindergarten classroom.

But putting that child to bed at a reasonable time and ending the terrible two's at the age of two rather than seeing them act out a "terrible-two tantrum" with a gun in their hands and innocent children in their sights might be a start.

Or maybe I am just a "kids these days" old codger.

Ice, dead batteries and the racism of progressives

Had our first big ice/snow event so I am making the changeover from my summer truck (2wd Silverado) to my winter truck (4wd Dodge Ram). Neither of the batteries are too hot so I am charging this battery and jumping that battery and realized I am the stereotypical redneck whose most important pieces of essential gear are jumper cables and a battery charger. Which led me to consider the inherent racism in the fact that it is okay to mock hillbilly redneck "red staters" clinging to their guns, their Bible, and of course, to their jumper cables and battery chargers. All the stereotypes have to do with the fact that we are poor, essentially. We have multiple cars in our driveways/yards because we can never seem to find the extra couple hundred bucks to replace that starter/alternator/master cylinder. If we did, we would probably be driving with no plates or insurance for the same reason. Now if I were black or Mexican I would have the same issues for the same reasons - lack of funds. But if you comment on the guy in the ghetto or the barrio who carries jumper cables for his own vehicle you are a racist - but not the trailer trash guy. Why is this? I maintain that it is because if you are white and you have these issues, it is your own fault...but if you are black or latino, it is not your fault...consider the racism here... One of our own race is an embarrassment, but a minority needs affirmative action and income redistribution, etc. So...why are the progressives so racist, I wonder???