On the Eve of South Carolina’s Decision to Leave the Union, Horace Greeley Articulates and Supports the State’s Right to Secede

Robert E. Lee - Surrender at Appomattox

Diane Rufino, May 7, 2018

Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Daily Tribune, was the embodiment of the North. In an editorial for the paper on December 17, 1860 (three days before South Carolina voted in Convention to secede, and amidst rumors that the state would likely secede), Greeley articulated the view of secession that most in government and in the North held. In that brilliant editorial, entitled “The Right of Secession,” he wrote:

We have repeatedly asked those who dissent from our view of this matter to tell us frankly whether they do or do not assent to Mr. Jefferson’s statement in the Declaration of Independence that governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government,” etc. etc. We do heartily accept this doctrine, believing it intrinsically sound, beneficent, and one that, universally accepted, is calculated to prevent the shedding of seas of human blood. And, if it justified the secession from the British Empire of three million colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of five millions of Southerners from the federal union in 1861. If we are mistaken on this point, why does not someone attempt to show wherein and why we could not stand up for coercion, for subjugation.  We do not think such would be just. We hold the right of self-government to be sacred, even when invoked on behalf of those who deny it to others. If ever ‘seven or eight States’ send agents to Washington to say “We want to get out of the Union,” we shall feel constrained by our devotion to Human Liberty to say: ‘Let Them Go!” We do not see how we could take the other side without coming in direct conflict with those Rights of Man which we hold paramount to all political arrangements, however convenient and advantageous.

Of course, when Northern businessmen and northern businesses realized how badly they would suffer without the stream of money coming from the South and its tariff collections and in trade against a “free-trade” Confederacy (the Confederate Constitution prohibited protective tariffs), their view of secession changed.

Even Europe saw the Civil War for what it was. Europe understood that at its core, the American “Civil War” as an exercise of the right of secession. If the South had the right to secede from the Union, which Europe believed it had (articulated to a “candid world” in the Declaration of Independence), then the South held the moral superiority in the conflict and Southerners were the heroes. The North was the great villain, starting a fratricidal war merely for commercial and economic gain.  Certainly Great Britain knew what was going on, for the Confederacy was hoping it would join the conflict on its side and the North was doing what it could to prevent that from happening (ie, the Emancipation Proclamation).  The legendary English writer, Charles Dickens, expressed this view very clearly in commentary during that period.

British Lord Acton (John Dalberg Acton) wrote the following to General Robert E. Lee in November 1866, a year and a half after his surrender at Appomattox:

…… I saw in States Rights the only available check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will (of the federal government), and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the Old World the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore, I deemed that you were fighting the battles for our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.

The South, unequivocally and without doubt, had the right to secede from the Union. Anyone who believes in the Declaration of Independence and in the debates in the several Ratifying Conventions to determine whether the Constitution (creating a limited government) would be ratified HAS to believe in the right of secession and HAS to respect the decision of the Southern States to seek their independence. After all, the Declaration of Independence is the greatest Ordinance of Secession ever written and the most eloquent expression of the right of and the desire to pursue independence.

 

***  This article is based, in part, on sections from Gene Kizer Jr’s book, Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, Charleston Athenaeum Press (2014)

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Duty, Honor, Country: A Life Spent Devoted to his Country

Douglas MacArthur

(Photo credit:  LIFE magazine)

by Diane Rufino, May 24, 2018

Cleaning out Dad’s apartment, I took notice, probably for the first time, of an excerpt of a speech that he had displayed in his room. The remarks were from a speech given by U.S. General Douglas MacArthur on May 12, 1962 to the cadets at West Point. It is now considered one of the top ten speeches of all time – and rightly so.

On that day, General MacArthur accepted the Sylvanus Thayer Award – an award presented to an outstanding citizen of the United States whose service and accomplishments in the national interest exemplify personal devotion to the ideals expressed in the West Point motto, “Duty, Honor, Country.” In accepting that prestigious award, he delivered the following speech:

General Westmoreland, General Grove, distinguished guests, and gentlemen of the Corps….

As I was leaving the hotel this morning, a doorman asked me, “Where are you bound for, General?” And when I replied, “West Point,” he remarked, “Beautiful place. Have you ever been there before?”

No human being could fail to be deeply moved by such a tribute as this [Thayer Award]. Coming from a profession I have served so long, and a people I have loved so well, it fills me with an emotion I cannot express. But this award is not intended primarily to honor a personality, but to symbolize a great moral code — the code of conduct and chivalry of those who guard this beloved land of culture and ancient descent. That is the animation of this medallion. For all eyes and for all time, it is an expression of the ethics of the American soldier. That I should be integrated in this way with so noble an ideal arouses a sense of pride and yet of humility which will be with me always.

Duty, Honor, Country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying points: to build courage when courage seems to fail; to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith; to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.

Unhappily, I possess neither that eloquence of diction, that poetry of imagination, nor that brilliance of metaphor to tell you all that they mean.

The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and I am sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them even to the extent of mockery and ridicule.

But these are some of the things they do: They build your basic character. They mold you for your future roles as the custodians of the nation’s defense. They make you strong enough to know when you are weak, and brave enough to face yourself when you are afraid. They teach you to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in success; not to substitute words for actions, not to seek the path of comfort, but to face the stress and spur of difficulty and challenge; to learn to stand up in the storm but to have compassion on those who fall; to master yourself before you seek to master others; to have a heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh, yet never forget how to weep; to reach into the future yet never neglect the past; to be serious yet never to take yourself too seriously; to be modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness, the open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength. They give you a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a vigor of the emotions, a freshness of the deep springs of life, a temperamental predominance of courage over timidity, of an appetite for adventure over love of ease. They create in your heart the sense of wonder, the unfailing hope of what next, and the joy and inspiration of life. They teach you in this way to be an officer and a gentleman.

And what sort of soldiers are those you are to lead? Are they reliable? Are they brave? Are they capable of victory? Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man-at-arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefield many, many years ago, and has never changed. I regarded him then as I regard him now — as one of the world’s noblest figures, not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless. His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give.

He needs no eulogy from me or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy’s breast. But when I think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire, and of his modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words. He belongs to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of successful patriotism. He belongs to posterity as the instructor of future generations in the principles of liberty and freedom. He belongs to the present, to us, by his virtues and by his achievements. In 20 campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand campfires, I have witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation, and that invincible determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people. From one end of the world to the other he has drained deep the chalice of courage.

As I listened to those songs [of the glee club], in memory’s eye I could see those staggering columns of the First World War, bending under soggy packs, on many a weary march from dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle-deep through the mire of shell-shocked roads, to form grimly for the attack, blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many, to the judgment seat of God.

I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death. They died unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory. Always, for them: Duty, Honor, Country; always their blood and sweat and tears, as we sought the way and the light and the truth.

And 20 years after, on the other side of the globe, again the filth of murky foxholes, the stench of ghostly trenches, the slime of dripping dugouts; those boiling suns of relentless heat, those torrential rains of devastating storms; the loneliness and utter desolation of jungle trails; the bitterness of long separation from those they loved and cherished; the deadly pestilence of tropical disease; the horror of stricken areas of war; their resolute and determined defense, their swift and sure attack, their indomitable purpose, their complete and decisive victory — always victory. Always through the bloody haze of their last reverberating shot, the vision of gaunt, ghastly men reverently following your password of: Duty, Honor, Country.

The code which those words perpetuate embraces the highest moral laws and will stand the test of any ethics or philosophies ever promulgated for the uplift of mankind. Its requirements are for the things that are right, and its restraints are from the things that are wrong.

The soldier, above all other men, is required to practice the greatest act of religious training — sacrifice.

In battle and in the face of danger and death, he discloses those divine attributes which his Maker gave when he created man in his own image. No physical courage and no brute instinct can take the place of the Divine help which alone can sustain him.

However horrible the incidents of war may be, the soldier who is called upon to offer and to give his life for his country is the noblest development of mankind.

You now face a new world — a world of change. The thrust into outer space of the satellite, spheres, and missiles mark the beginning of another epoch in the long story of mankind. In the five or more billions of years the scientists tell us it has taken to form the earth, in the three or more billion years of development of the human race, there has never been a more abrupt or staggering evolution. We deal now not with things of this world alone, but with the illimitable distances and as yet unfathomed mysteries of the universe. We are reaching out for a new and boundless frontier.

We speak in strange terms: of harnessing the cosmic energy; of making winds and tides work for us; of creating unheard synthetic materials to supplement or even replace our old standard basics; to purify sea water for our drink; of mining ocean floors for new fields of wealth and food; of disease preventatives to expand life into the hundreds of years; of controlling the weather for a more equitable distribution of heat and cold, of rain and shine; of space ships to the moon; of the primary target in war, no longer limited to the armed forces of an enemy, but instead to include his civil populations; of ultimate conflict between a united human race and the sinister forces of some other planetary galaxy; of such dreams and fantasies as to make life the most exciting of all time.

And through all this welter of change and development, your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable: it is to win our wars.

Everything else in your professional career is but corollary to this vital dedication. All other public purposes, all other public projects, all other public needs, great or small, will find others for their accomplishment. But you are the ones who are trained to fight. Yours is the profession of arms,  the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory; that if you lose, the nation will be destroyed; that the very obsession of your public service must be: Duty, Honor, Country.

Others will debate the controversial issues, national and international, which divide men’s minds; but serene, calm, aloof, you stand as the Nation’s war-guardian, as its lifeguard from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiator in the arena of battle. For a century and a half you have defended, guarded, and protected its hallowed traditions of liberty and freedom, of right and justice.

Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government; whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing, indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as thorough and complete as they should be. These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a ten-fold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country.

You are the leaven which binds together the entire fabric of our national system of defense. From your ranks come the great captains who hold the nation’s destiny in their hands the moment the war tocsin sounds. The Long Gray Line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses thundering those magic words: Duty, Honor, Country.

This does not mean that you are war mongers.

On the contrary, the soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.

But always in our ears ring the ominous words of Plato, that wisest of all philosophers: “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

The shadows are lengthening for me. The twilight is here. My days of old have vanished, tone and tint. They have gone glimmering through the dreams of things that were. Their memory is one of wondrous beauty, watered by tears, and coaxed and caressed by the smiles of yesterday. I listen vainly, but with thirsty ears, for the witching melody of faint bugles blowing reveille, of far drums beating the long roll. In my dreams I hear again the crash of guns, the rattle of musketry, the strange, mournful mutter of the battlefield.

But in the evening of my memory, always I come back to West Point.

Always there echoes and re-echoes: Duty, Honor, Country.

Today marks my final roll call with you, but I want you to know that when I cross the river my last conscious thoughts will be of The Corps, and The Corps, and The Corps.

I bid you farewell.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

My father had the last portion of the speech displayed in his apartment.

Dad was very patriotic; he loved this country. He loved his time in the service and would have gladly volunteered again to defend her. Duty. He felt an obligation to this country – the country that opened its arms to his father and mother; he felt an obligation to continue the tradition begun by his father, and that was to enlist and serve. It’s one of his most defining qualities and one that I can remember even from childhood.

And you should have seen his reverence for the American flag. He respected each flag as if it had draped the casket of a fallen soldier. He folded and stored each one with care.

This is the generation we are losing.

Their children (people like myself) grew up in a world saved by the guardians of freedom, but who quickly watched the evil forces within destroy the foundations that made her what she was. We tell our tales and share our experiences and warn of what the country will look like if we remain on this path, but our generation too is fading.

To the millennials, who are actively destroying this country – a country they will have to raise their families in and try to enjoy their lives in – I implore you to STOP with your identity politics, stop with the endless charges of racism, and with your utter reluctance to listen to and learn the truth. Trust me, the truth will not kill you and it won’t even hurt you. It will make you stronger, bolder, more intelligent, and armed with the proper tools you’ll need to meet the challenges of your time.

The Constitution is NOT a thing of wax to be molded into a document that suits your purpose; it is a document to keep government off your backs, out of your pocketbook, off your property, and away from your essential rights as a human being. Once you cloud the true meaning of one part of the Constitution, you cloud the entire document, imperiling and weakening its purpose as a shield against a heavy-handed government. You will, in fact, transform it into a sword with which to harm you.

If you seek societal change, please proceed the correct way, the constitutional way, which is the amendment process outlined in Article V. Please reject the improper way, the unconstitutional way, which is by using the federal courts to do an end-run around the legislature (and the democratic process) and the Constitution itself, and by embracing the legal fiction that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.” The only thing that is living and breathing is life. And unlike the imagery generated – fabricated – by the term “living, breathing document,” life is actually defined strictly, according to laws that are fixed in nature and never changing. The “living, breathing document” approach is just the insidious creation of activist judges who wanted to give the courts the power to circumvent the Article V process, which in their minds takes too long and which also assumes that judges are smarter and know better than the states and the people themselves. Simply put, it is a invention to transform the Constitution and to transform US society faster than the body politic in general is ready to accomplish properly, legally, constitutionally.

My father and the men (and even the women) of his age lived their lives by a certain code of honor. They acknowledged the blessing bestowed on this country – to be spared the nightmare that befell Europe with Hitler in their backyard. And they acknowledged their role, their supreme sacrifice, in liberating the world of his menace, as well as defeating the evil ambitions of Imperial Japan. The comfort and solace they took in the role they played, for the most part, remained as a quiet and unspoken part of their lives. But the pride they felt in what they did and what they stood for, as well as their pride in country, was the foundation of the honor they displayed throughout their lives. The word “duty” and “honor” meant something very real to my Dad, and to other veterans of his era. In the movie A FEW GOOD MEN, Colonel Jessup (Jack Nicholson) said: “We use words like “honor,” “code,” “loyalty.” We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something.” To my father, it meant respecting and honoring a country that secured freedom and offered him a home where he could have opportunities that he could never have enjoyed in other countries. Jessup’s next line – “You use them as a punch line” – seems to describe very well today’s millennials. They make a mockery of the very ideals our country once stood for. They are seeking to tear down the vestiges of the hallmarks that made this country what it used to be – including the right of free speech and the right to be able to defend oneself.

Who, from my father’s generation and my generation, can forget learning that Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto had reservations about invading the US mainland because of all the guns that citizens had for their protection. In a letter he penned in 1942, he wrote: “to invade the United States would prove most difficult because behind every blade of grass is an American with a rifle.”

To the millennials, please reflect on this: What makes the United States a “free” country is not the luxury of being spared words and commentary, even actual history, that hurts one’s feelings. It is not the hope (and the delusion) that banning guns will stop violent crime and mass shootings. It is not the right to determine when a developing human being must be evicting from your womb and killed, and it is not the right to entitlements, healthcare, or a free education. It is not the right to deny others their ability to live their lives according to their deeply-held peaceful religious beliefs just because it offends you or doesn’t fully embrace your lifestyle. It isn’t the right to re-define science and demand gender fluidity or to prevent every instance of discrimination (discrimination will always exist in the hearts and minds of humans as long as there is even one feature that makes us different). And it isn’t the right of other nationals (immigrants) to have unfettered access to this country and its resources and opportunities.

What makes us a “free” country is the right to “be left alone” by government, the right to the fruits of one’s labor, the right to an honest opportunity to the American Dream, the right to speak freely and without self-censorship for fear of hurting someone’s feelings or government retaliation, the right to assemble peacefully without fear that the police will stand down to allow violent opposition, the right to have and bear arms for self-protection (whatever the individual believes is necessary in his or her situation for self-protection), the right to privacy, the right not to have the government spy on citizens or to collect data (for possible future use), the right to one’s property without the government seizing it for its own purposes (or for a better purpose), the right to challenge one’s loss of life, liberty, or property (due process), the rights protecting a person should he or she be accused of a crime, the right to confront one’s accuser and to a trial (a speedy trial) by jury, and the right to be free of any cruel or unusual punishment. What makes us free is adhering to the divinely-inspired principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence –  (1) that “All Men are created equal” and have inherent worth and dignity and endowed with the same rights; (2) that we are “endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights including Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, which means that they are part of our human fabric (not given to us by a benevolent government, and therefore not subject to forfeiture by said government); (3) that government is instituted for the primary purpose of securing our inalienable rights, and that no other purpose comes before that (certainly not for “taking care of us” cradle to grave, redistributing wealth, providing healthcare, ensuring entitlement programs, spearheading social change, etc); and (4) that government exists only as long as it serves its legitimate purpose, which first and foremost is to secure the individual (not collective) rights of man.

What helps ensure that we remain a free country is the role of the States against the federal government, as articulated in the Tenth Amendment, and NOT the right of the government to demand that each State blindly comply with the government, its court decisions, or to mandate that each conform to a “one-size-fits-all” model.

Again, I implore you, oh rebellious millennials, to read, study, and learn the truth. Don’t seek to change this country..  it is basically good and decent and generous and responsible. Respect it and preserve it. Make your mark, but do so intelligently, responsibly, legally, and most of all, respectfully. Generations have sacrificed more than you will ever know to allow you the privilege of calling yourself an “American” and to afford you the luxury to freely exercise the rights you do even as you seek to use them to deny rights to others and even to abolish them for yourself in the future.

Please hold this country in your care, as you would a child, ignoring what is best for you personally and putting the interests of your child first. Selfishness and the millennial “Me First” mentality (the “Politics of Me”) are what is dividing and killing this country.  The beauty about America is not that we are a mix of different peoples but that we truly form “one people.”  Politics is a nasty game that is, at its core, an aggressive adversarial system, pitting one side against the other, fighting for power and control. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of the average citizen. You must understand that. Our country is more important than the outcome of some nasty, counter-productive, divisive political game…. It MUST be more important than that. Only we the people can make it so. In the coming years, it will be you, as you transition to the workforce and to parenthood, who will take the lead.

Please act responsibly. Please make this country admirable enough that, like my father and those of his age and era, her citizens would be willing to die for her.

DAD - Navy pic

(My Dad, age 18, in the Navy)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In Loving Memory of my Dad

OLD PIC - Dad and Me (at Alexis' wedding)

by Diane Rufino, April 24, 2018

Last week I lost my father. We buried him on Wednesday, April 18, in an intimate, quiet ceremony. It was the hardest thing I’ve had to do in my life so far.

How do you say good-bye to your father?  How do you say good-bye to the man who has loved you unconditionally all his life, who has loved you more than life itself?  How do you say good-bye to the man who raised you with the happiest of childhoods, but who ended up living alone most of his adult life and was lonely, yet never complained when you didn’t have the time to visit him?  How do you say good-bye to the man whose face lit up everytime he saw you and who hugged and kissed you everytime you left?  How do you say good-bye to the man who, even as dementia denied his body of the use of his mind, still remembered you on every visit and still was able to greet you with “Hi Hon”?

My father and mother divorced when I was ten years old and although my sister and I grew up in a broken home, with a single working parent (sometimes two and three jobs), the demands of school, being active in our church, and the many sports and activities we were involved with, helped us to stay busy, keep our focus off the lonely house, and build the character that would help sustain us as we grew up. All that time, Dad made sure he was a constant and visible force in our lives. He moved into an apartment in the same town and we saw him often. He was involved at every phase of our lives – our moving out into our own apartments and living on our own, and getting married and having/raising our children. He was a hands-on grandfather, a job he embraced with the same joy and happiness he had when raising my sister and I. He couldn’t get enough of his grandkids. The stories of their childhood filled his elder years, and he told and re-told those stories all the time – to everyone, including perfect strangers.

He wanted the best for his grandkids, just as he wanted the best for my sister and I.  I remember him telling me that I should discourage my girls from dating until they were done with their education. He didn’t want a boyfriend or an unwanted pregnancy to deter them from their potential. I told him I “was on it.” But that didn’t stop him. When my daughter Sierra visited him (she was around 20 years old at the time), he took her aside to warn her about the dangers of dating while in college. He tried to tell her about the birds and the bees… at age 20!  I told him: “Don’t worry, Dad, I think she already knows where babies come from.”

It was his undying and unconditional love that provided the safety net to go out in life, to take chances in my education and career and not be afraid to fail. I knew I would never be judged or criticized; I would be loved no matter what. And that glimmer of pride in the way he always looked at me would never go away.

My parents may have divorced, and Mom even remarried, but that never stopped my father from being a part of every holiday, every special occasion, every Christening, every graduation, and every birthday. My Mom always included him at her house for every family event and my sister and I included him at our houses as well, regardless of whether it may have caused any discomfort for Mom’s new husband. Family is family.  None of us doubted it, questioned it, or tried to diminish it in any way.  Even though the actual family unit, physically, had changed, and I admit that I missed it very much, we all remained as a family unit in every other sense. After all, we are tied forever by DNA, personality, and history, and love. We are our parents. We are the sum of what they are/were, and what their grandparents were, and what their parents were before them – with our own special attributes and peculiarities.  We are able to be the loving parents that we are because they loved/love us.  They still do, and I believe, always will.

On Wednesday morning, before the ceremony, I saw my father for the last time, in his casket, looking so at peace. I wanted badly for him to be at peace, and so did my sister, but selfishly we also didn’t want him to leave us. Then I remembered the line: “Death is only the end if you assume the story is about you.”

But it didn’t help.

The fact is that I wasn’t ready for Dad to leave me. I honestly thought I had more time with him. I had more plans of days to spend with him and news to share. I thought there would be more days of going to see him and feeling the happiness of seeing his face light up and hearing the words “Hi Hon.”

And so, a part of me is gone now. I miss it so much and I miss him to my core. But my Dad is in a better place, I know, free from a body that was failing him terribly.

The picture I posted above of Dad and I will always be the one that best reminds me of how much he loved me. In the pic, his expression says it all. But the reality is that I felt that love and pride with me all the time, even when we were many states apart. My father had an exceptionally rough and sad life, but at least I know that my sister and I brought him happiness and love. There will never be a day when I am not reminded of him — all I have to do is look in the mirror, and I see his face in mine. Luckily, I will always have that blessing.

Dad, I love you so much. You’ll always be in my heart and in the rest of my life as I lead it.  You’ll be with me.

Not certain I would be able to hold it together at his final resting place, I was able to mutter these words to Dad as I said good-bye at the cemetery:

I’m not ready for good-bye

Nor ‘So Long’ or “See You Later’

Not ready for the end

Not ready for this reality.

I’m not ready for this life

One without you in it.

I’m not ready for your good-bye

Maybe someone else’s

…… Anyone else’s

Just not yours.

Death doesn’t become of you.

It isn’t your best color.

So could they change the prognosis?

Tell me it was just a mistake?

Just another mis-diagnosis?

Please remind me you are indestructible

Just like I always believed.

Tell me you are still my guardian

And still going to be living..

Please tell me, Daddy

You will always be my best friend.

Please tell me you will never leave me

And you’ll be here ‘til the end.

Tell me I’m having a nightmare

And when I wake up in the morning

I’ll find you aren’t gone

Because I love you so much, Daddy

To Infinity and Beyond

Reference:  https://www.familyfriendpoems.com/poem/not-ready-for-goodbye   (Modified for Dad)

DAD & UNCLE GENE - Navy days

(Dad, age 18, on the left, with his cousin Gene.  Navy days…. some of his happiest memories)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Say Hello to My Little Friend !

TEA PARTY - Katydid with Don't Tread on Me Flag - BEST

Two days ago, I rescued this adorable hopper from my pool. While he was drying off, I took some pics of him. In this pic, with his hand raised, it looked like he was waving Hello to me. And then I thought….  maybe I can stick a flag in that hand.

Diane Rufino

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Government Control of the People – The Progressive Scheme: Making Useful Idiots Out of Useless Idiots

SOCIALISM - One Nation Under Government Control

by Diane Rufino, April 5, 2018

Saul Alinsky, the Godfather of the “Community-Organizing” movement and prophet of the progressive movement, wrote a book that many involved in grassroots politics are familiar with – RULES FOR RADICALS. With that book, he provided a guide for future community organizers to use in uniting and motivating low-income communities, or “Have-Nots,” in order for them to exert social, political, legal, and economic power. In other words, he outlined a plan to turn useless idiots into useful idiots for political purposes. The beauty of his plan is that the “Have-Not’s” are merely pawns; they are really not served in exchange for all their efforts. The ruse, and the promise, is that they will be. And they believe that for their efforts, their cause will be advanced. But the fact is that they are useful for only one purpose – to advance the goals of the progressive elites who need their political contributions to be successful. The ultimate purpose, of course, is the creation of a large, concentrated, socialist government with the power to control the lives of its citizens and the permanent control by the political elite. In fact, Alinsky’s Rules is based heavily on Karl Marx’ Communist Manifesto – the grand plan for world conquest by communism. Marx outlined how to foment a political revolution among the lower classes of people.

If government (controlled by a progressive political elite) can control the lives of the people (or at least, a huge chunk of them), if it can control the information they are given, the way they think, the necessities they need to support themselves, and if it can remove from them the burden of education and personal responsibility and even the confines of a marriage to have and raise children, then it doesn’t have to worry about politics. In the government of Saul Alinsky, and in the government of the Progressives, political power is secured as long as people are controlled.

Therefore, the goal of the progressives, the socialists, the liberals (all those who seek a large aggressive government) is political security and the establishment of a permanent ruling class…  no more “red state” versus “blue state”; no more “Republican vs. Democrat.”  They seek the end of the Conservative movement. They seek the end of the country of our founding. They seek a fundamental transformation.

That goal is made clear by Alinsky in the very dedication he wrote in the forward to his book, which, by the way, has the full title “RULES FOR RADICALS: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.” He dedicated his work to Lucifer, the original “radical” and “community organizer.” The dedication reads: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

By his own admission, Alinsky’s book is a scheme for transformation – transforming a system “as it is” to one that “is as it should be,” with the “should be” to be determined by progressives. Lucifer took a world modeled by God for good, with parameters established to enrich for goodness and for fruitful conduct and behavior, and by manipulating individuals and appealing to their worst tendencies, transformed that good and decent existence into one plagued with evil and mortal sin. Alinsky praises this radicalization and transformation as a good thing – one that should be modeled and replicated.  One would say that our country – founded on the notion of individual liberty and limited government, predicated on religion and morality in order to provide proper boundaries for acceptable conduct and personal responsibility – is as good a state as humanly and earthly possible and transformation will only destroy the inherent good and Godly in that system.

Which political party has become the party of the Progressive Movement…. The party of transformation?  It is, and has been for many years now, the Democratic Party.

Alinsky’s writings helped mold the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and ultimately, through her husband’s influence, Michelle Obama. Barack Obama studied RULES FOR RADICALS to become the community organizer that he was. His fruits paid off for his own election. How many times have we heard him use to phrase (in one form or another): “the world as it is and the world as it should be…”?  And Hillary Clinton was so enamored and motivated by the book that she characterized Alinsky as her mentor. She invited him to speak at her college, Wellesley College, and gave his introduction. In her college senior thesis, she chose to research and write a dissertation entitled “There is Only the Fight… An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” As Jeannie DeAngelis wrote in her February 3, 2014 article in American Thinker: “That model may be the reason why, after Bill Clinton took office, nasty tactics, shifting blame, and truth-parsing became commonplace in American politics.”

Following in the footsteps of Marx, Alinsky applies a simple model in his scheme to organize the “Have-Nots” to achieve his ultimate goal of transforming America —  he focuses on their poverty and status while pointing to a government that has not done enough for them as the common enemy.

The first task of the community-organizer is that of agitating the “Have-Nots” (the useless idiots). Alinsky explains how to achieve that – by rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. The organizer must play on their sense of apathy – of accepting a situation that has done little for them. Alinsky would say, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization.” Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a “mass army” that brings in as many recruits as possible from the streets, the impoverished communities, corner gangs, minority groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and other non-conformist type individuals.

Once the “Have-Nots” have organized, protested, and gone to the voting booth, the pay-off is abysmal. They are not served, but rather, they are put in a position to be controlled over and over again. They are treated to impressive sound bites and unrealistic promises, and perhaps given a free cell phone here and there, but in reality, they are politically enslaved.

Useless idiots are only useful for one purpose, and that’s at the ballot box. They serve no other meaningful purpose in society; they are a burden and merely pose problems. Useless idiots just want to be taken care of; the worst of them believe they are “entitled” to be taken care of.

Because of their lowly status and because of their tendency for dependency, useless idiots can be manipulated and manipulated they are – and have been. They’ve been manipulated since the end of the 1960’s. Again, they are useful for the ultimate transformation of our country.

I never understood the attraction of a socialist state to the individual, especially in this country, and to so many people. In a socialist state, individuals lose their rights, their freedoms, and their choices to the dictates of government.

Alinsky’s tactics for community organizing would inspire two Columbia University sociologists, Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven to write their now-infamous article “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.” In that article, Cloward and Piven articulated a strategy – now known as the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” – which seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, in particular welfare and other entitlement programs (“the welfare crisis:). The inability to meet these demands – required, in most part (according to the article) by the ghetto communities and poor African-Americans – would push the United States into crisis and economic collapse and ultimately usher in a social state – one that would have to be established if it was to be able to effectively meet the demands of the people.  The one particular demand that Cloward and Piven wrote about in their article was the demand of a guaranteed income level. There would need to be major economic reform at the national level to provide this new program of direct income redistribution.  This major transformation of the government – from one that leaves the individual free to exercise their rights to pursue opportunities to one that smothers the individual in their free exercise of rights in order to “take care of certain individuals” – is a good thing, and a necessary thing, according to Cloward and Piven.

One can see how Saul Alinsky’s RULES for mobilizing the “Have-Nots” has motivated and has inspired the Columbia sociologists into advancing their “Strategy” for transforming this country into a social state.

By the way, both the Saul Alinsky book and the Cloward-Piven strategy were written to empower and advance the Democratic Party and to secure a Democratic-controlled government.

Now, there is incorrect information being circulated on the internet about “the 8 levels of government control needed to establish a social state” and that information being attributed to Alinsky and his book.  I’ve actually seen where it is attributed to Cloward and Piven as well. While the information is not addressed in RULES FOR RADICALS, nor in the article addressed above, these levels are nonetheless worth addressing.

These 8 levels, according to the unfounded articles, are those that a government would need in order to establish an effective social (socialist) state. I am discussing them below because they actually make a lot of sense. Each level makes it harder for individuals to break free from the unhealthy dependency on government and makes it easier for government to control the people, especially the young. While there is no actual source cited for the origin of these levels of control, several are actually implicated in Karl Marx’ Communist Manifesto and many are mentioned expressly in the Cloward-Piven Strategy. With respect to controlling people for the purposes of manipulating them, Alinsky addresses at least two as being necessary.

The levels of control of which I am referring are:

(1)  Healthcare – A government that controls the people’s healthcare controls the people themselves

(2)  Poverty – people in poverty are easiest to control; hence, it is most beneficial for government to pursue policies that increase the level of poverty or keep individuals and their offspring in poverty

(3)  Debt – government will increase the national debt to unsustainable levels because then it can continue to tax heavily (and to increase taxation; to burden property). Taxation produces more poverty or at least, prevents many from improving their financial situation

(4)  Gun Control – disarming the people allows the government to establish a police state, if need be

(5)  Welfare – welfare allows government to take control of every aspect of a recipient’s life – food, housing, choices, even decisions to marry or to pursue education. Government will never get rid of welfare programs if its goal is socialism

(6)  Education – government needs to take control of what its youth learns…  what they read, what they listen to, and what things mean; it needs to use the education system as a means to indoctrinate its citizens.

(7)  Religion – a belief in God needs to be removed from schools, government, the marketplace, and the public square. A socialist government substitutes itself for the role of God.  A moral, religious people will always question the legitimate role of government and so it must minimize this faction.

(8)  Class Warfare government needs to divide its people into poor and wealthy — the “have’s” and the “have-not’s.”  It also needs to divide people along racial lines – characterizing one group as “victims” and the other as “oppressors” (or as “beneficiaries”). This way it is easier to demonize the wealthy, the empowered, the benefitted classes and therefore, to take from them — their money (through taxation – to benefit the poor), and their positions (through “diversity”-enrichment programs). It is easier to re-engineer society by creating division, hatred, and distrust.

Looking at this list, the federal government has achieved every one of these levels of control – EXCEPT gun control. Is it any wonder that the left is pursuing it at such a rabid level lately?  Is it any wonder that it uses every tragedy to attack the Second Amendment?

If government, in fact, must undertake massive economic reforms to deal with the tremendous burden of our dependent classes (those taking advantage of welfare and other social programs, or using them as a way of life), including the unsustainable burden of immigration, subjugation and control of the American people is the natural consequence. Total control requires people to be unarmed – unable to physically revolt against their government.

Think seriously about the information I’ve written in this article. We are talking about the potential transformation of the country we love. If you are a “useless idiot,” I implore you to resist being manipulated by those who really care little for you and certainly for your improved status. After all, if your position is improved too much, you cannot be controlled and therefore are of no use to them. I also implore you to get angry at the left (the Progressives, the liberals, the Democrats) for characterizing you this way and manipulating you for their purposes. Get angry and take charge of your life, proving to everyone (most importantly, to yourself and your loved ones) that you are a vital part of a society and a country that values every individual and protects their rights to live free), not one that just wants to control him or her and thus limit those rights.

Become involved; become engaged; become educated and informed. Seek out the truth, for the truth will set you free.

This is your home – the United States of America.. The “Home of the Free.”  This is, or will be, the home of your children. This is, or will be, the home of your grandchildren. Help preserve it.  Don’t allow this current generation, and maybe the next, to be the last ones to enjoy the freedoms we’ve come to be known for.

 

References:

Lonestarliberty, “What is Happening in America: Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals,” May 17, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://lonestarliberty.net/alinskys-rules-radicals/

Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty,” The Nation, May 2, 1966.  Referenced at:  https://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/03/24/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty

The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto (Karl Marx) –  http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Proposed State Sovereignty Resolution to Re-assert the Tenth and Second Amendments

Don't Tread on Me (#3)

by Diane Rufino, February 21, 2018

The following is a proposed State Sovereignty Resolution that I wrote and proposed to my legislators in the North Carolina General Assembly. I feel very strongly that the General Assembly should make it clear that the people’s right to have and bear arms is safe and secure in our state.

NORTH CAROLINA STATE SOVEREIGNTY RESOLUTION

A Bill Announcing the Intention to Nullify any and all Unconstitutional federal Gun Control Bills that the State of North Carolina and its People believe to be an Infringement of their Natural Rights of Self-Defense and Self-Protection as Recognized by the Second Amendment

The State of North Carolina asserts the following

A warm attachment to the Union of the States, to which it had pledged its loyalty in accordance with the terms of the Constitution, the compact that created it, and to that end, it has a duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the basis of that Union, because only a faithful observance of them can secure its existence and the public happiness;

Its recognition and respect for the lawful and constitutional process for altering the terms and meaning of the Constitution, including the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, which are the two procedures listed in Article V (the Amendment Process);

The Second Amendment recognizes that a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed;

The Second Amendment also recognizes that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed;

The Second Amendment recognizes the natural right of Self-Defense and Self-Protection, both on behalf of the State (“a free State,” by the way) and of the individual;

The Second Amendment doesn’t grant these rights but rather, it protects them, without condition or limitation, from the reaches of the federal government, especially the US Congress and its law-making power;

The phrase “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is clear and instructional on its face;

To affirm the point above further and to support it greater, the States specifically included a Preamble to explain the reason for the ten amendments to the new Constitution (amendments that were demanded by them and without them would have jeopardized and prevented the ratification of that document. The Preamble reads: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution”;

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes abundantly clear that the Constitution established a federal government of limited powers, and that in those limited objects of government, the federal government is limited even further by the ten amendments added (ratified by 3/4 of the States) on Dec. 15, 1791;

Just as the Supremacy Clause asserts the supremacy of the federal government with respect to the powers delegated to it, which are “few and defined” (Federalist No. 45, written by the same man, James Madison, who authored the Constitution), the Tenth Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights assert the supremacy of the States with respect to the powers reserved to them;

That one of the reserved powers of the State is the responsibility, the duty, to prevent unconstitutional federal laws, policies, executive actions, and court opinions from infringing on the rights of its people;

The Second Amendment has a very purposeful history; the rights recognized were not rights pulled out of thin air but rather stem from Natural Law and the concept that certain rights are endowed by a Creator (inherent in our very humanity);

Our Founders were not talking about hunting when they demanded that the Second Amendment be added to the Constitution; they were concerned about the freedom of the individual, and also the populace in general, to be armed in the face of a powerful and aggressive government – one that may send out a standing army in times of peace, one that may try to enact laws for gun and ammunition confiscation, and one that may eventually try to outright or effectively disarm its people;

The history of England, and indeed the history of many other nations, teaches us that when individuals are unable to defend themselves and their rights, they essentially have no rights. Rather, they have temporary permission from government to exercise rights until they somehow pose a serious threat to those in power.

James Madison once said: “If Men were angels, no government would be necessary.”  But what if it was the federal government that was not the angel?  The Second Amendment is the contingency plan in such a case;

James Madison also wrote (in Federalist No. 28): “If the representatives of the People betray their constituents, there is no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government”;

In addition to the natural right to defend one’s life and property, as well as those of family members and perhaps fellow citizens who are vulnerable,  there are other components of self-defense and self-protection other than the actual confrontation and neutralization of a violent intruder or attacker, that the people recognize – one being DETERRENCE;

Gun-Free Zones, homes without effective firearms, and individuals of sound mind disenfranchised in their right to have and bear arms serve as attractive targets for criminals and evil-intentioned, mentally-disturbed individuals;

The State of North Carolina, under the Tenth Amendment and according to compact principles, reserves the right to determine when the federal government has over-stepped its constitutional bounds with respect to legislation on gun control;

The State of North Carolina will NOT comply with any federal gun control law or policy that hinders or burdens its citizens in their free exercise of the natural right of self-defense and self-protection recognized by the Second Amendment;

In furtherance of its DUTY to prevent unconstitutional or abusive acts of the federal government on its citizens, and in furtherance of its DUTY to prevent the God-given and Natural rights of its People, the State of North Carolina will interpose using whatever means necessary to ensure that such gun control laws or policies (including judicial opinions), or any laws, policies, or court opinions for that matter in violation of the Constitution generally or the Bill of Rights specifically are not enforced in the State.

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

I posted a closely-related article, with commentary on the Second Amendment, prior to this one –  https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2018/04/01/keep-the-second-amendment-secure-in-north-carolina-2/

- 2018 (gray shirt, March 24, 2018) - BEST

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Keep the Second Amendment Secure in North Carolina

SECOND AMENDMENT - Firearm on Constitution

by Diane Rufino, March 27, 2018

My appreciation of the Second Amendment and gratitude for the wisdom and insistence of our Founders and for the States who insisted that it was necessary to be included in our Constitution (or else they would refuse to join the Union) was solidified in an incident that happened to me many years ago.  When I was 26 years old, I was living on my own in my first apartment – a tiny, one-bedroom place in Plainsboro, New Jersey. My first job out of grad school didn’t pay very much so I had to work a second job to support myself.  One night, after getting home from my waitressing job and taking a shower, I had trouble sleeping. So I put on the TV and found a good Clint Eastwood movie to watch – Any Which Way But Loose. It was a very small apartment and it turns out that the TV stand I had was very close to the apartment door, which was locked. It was about 1:00 – 1:30 in the morning – maybe later. As I was watching the movie, I happened to notice that the door knob was moving. Someone was outside my door, trying to get in. The knob was moving harder and harder, and I was scared like I had never been scared before in my life. (I had learned soon after I moved into the apartment complex that a young woman tenant had been murdered just before I moved in).  As I was shaking uncontrollably and trying to find the number for the Plainsboro Police (the days before cell phones and 911), I heard a man speak through the crack in the door “Open the door; you’re the girl with the silver Fiero, right?”  In fact, I had a silver 1983 Pontiac Fiero. The man trying to break in specifically targeted MY apartment. He was looking for ME. I didn’t know who he was and I couldn’t imagine who he was. I was new to the area and had very few friends and acquaintances. I called the police, using the only phone I had, which was next to the kitchen. It was not in a direct line of view to the door. The police dispatcher told me to stay on the line and that a police car would be there shortly.  I picked up the only knife I had in my apartment – a cheap steak knife. All I kept saying was “Please hurry. Please hurry. I’m so scared.”

I was absolutely helpless. I am 4 foot 9 inches tall and weighed less than 100 pounds at the time. I had a cheap knife in my hand, not even sure if I was capable of overcoming my state of fear to defend myself.

The police arrived before the door was pried open and I collapsed in tears, grateful that someone was there to protect me. The potential intruder told the police that he had been drinking and in his drunken state, he must have gotten confused because he thought he was trying to get into his own apartment.  I told the police that it wasn’t the truth because he had called out “You’re the girl with the silver Fiero.”  Nevertheless, the police believed his story and they let him go. They admonished him for scaring me and told him “don’t do it again.” Turns out that he lived in the building next to my building; a grassy courtyard separated our buildings. He lived on the second floor.  My apartment was a ground-floor apartment. So, it was hard to imagine the police would have believed his story about being confused and thinking it was his apartment.

I never stayed in the apartment again after that. I stayed with a friend for about two weeks and then moved into a new place, in another town.

I often thought what I would have needed to defend myself that night, especially if he rushed in and rushed towards me. Again, I’m short and barely able to keep my composure when nervous. I am prone to anxiety attacks. Would a simple handgun holding 5 bullets been sufficient for me to stop him?  I can’t say for sure. Maybe, but maybe not. I imagine I would not have been composed enough to aim well so maybe not. I would have needed something that didn’t require accuracy. What if there were two men?  Well then, a simple handgun would not have been enough.

What if Plainsboro law required individuals to have guns dissembled in the home?

Self-protection is not a one-size-fits-all model. The Right to Self-Defense doesn’t require a one-size-fits all scheme. The Right to Self-Defense has no limits or conditions; it is merely the RIGHT to defend oneself (against others who intend harm), allowing each individual to decide for himself or herself what is needed to ensure that. The government once re-interpreted its “Necessary and Proper” Clause to mean “anything convenient” to help the government carry out its functions. It reasoned, in direct conflict with the very words of Article I, Section 8, that the government needs to determine, and to do, whatever helps it (“whatever is convenient”) to carry out its functions. We the People interpret the Second Amendment in the same broad sense –  “anything convenient” to carry into the effect the right to defend and protect oneself.

The Right to Life is recognized ever so profoundly in perhaps the most important, most significant document in the world – our American 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.”  The Right to Life is not the government’s to give, or define, to limit, or to take credit for, and the natural Rights to protect it, secure it, and preserve it (known as the Right of Self-Defense and the Right of Self-Preservation) are inherently equal to that Right to Life.

The day the government denies we the people that right to protect, secure, and preserve our lives is the day that we are no longer free but merely subjects, inferior in our status to the government’s right and power to preserve itself. The day that we lose our Right to Have and Bear Arms is the day that we surrender all other rights. The Right embodied in the Second Amendment is the one right that secures all others.

The Declaration goes on to tell us what we the people have the inherent and natural right to expect from government: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,….”  And then it instructs what we also have the inherent and natural right to do when government fails to secure our rights and instead, threatens them: “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…”

Powerful and progressive actors (individuals and organizations) in this country, including Michael Bloomberg, are forcing an evil agenda on the people of this country and on the government which has, as its ultimate goal, the destruction of the rights we are entitled to and the ones we need to continue being a free people. These actors are forcing us to re-evaluate whether our government is becoming destructive of the ends for which it was created and the result is not going to be pretty.  A government (King George III of England) tried that over 200 years ago at Lexington and Concord, MA, and then at Williamsburg, VA, and the result was a revolution for the right to govern as the colonies saw fit, with the goal to never surrender their rights and liberties again. Today’s youth don’t understand this. Today’s youth don’t even know about this.  Today’s progressives don’t care about this.

There are a lot of people out there, including those who marched on DC, who are advocating for the weakening and even the repeal of the Second Amendment. But that cannot happen. Let’s be absolutely clear on that. The Constitution – and thus the legal status – of the Second Amendment is crystal clear on the matter:  The Second Amendment confers the RIGHT to an individual to have and bear arms for SELF-DEFENSE (McDonald v. Chicago, 2010, and Heller v. District of Columbia, 2008).  That right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  Furthermore, the ONLY way the Second Amendment can be limited or abolished is through the Article V amendment process.  And there are some legal experts who believe that the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights can never be amended. Amendments, they explain, can be added (for example to include other rights), but the original ten amendments are to remain in force as they are because they recognize what, at the very least, our inherent liberty rights include. Because they are rights that are inalienable to us (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), we are always entitled to them.

What does it mean to have the natural right of self-defense?  It means we can be expected to protect ourselves, in any way that the situation requires. It means that if we are in fear for our lives or serious harm, we have the right to eliminate that threat. Individuals have the right to exercise their rights but only when they don’t seriously impact those of other individuals. I have the right to free speech. But my right doesn’t include the right to shut yours down. I have the right to own a gun, but I don’t have the right to take the life of an innocent person with it. The inherent, or natural, right of self-defense and self-preservation is recognized, and has been recognized historically, in criminal law. A person who shoots and kills an intruder carrying a gun commits homicide which is a serious crime. But under the law, it is considered “justifiable” and therefore not punishable. A woman who stabs and kills a man who is attacking her and intending to rape her commits homicide. But under the law, it is considered “justifiable” and therefore not punishable. “Justifiable” is a term which means that the killing was “justified,” and one of the most common reasons is self-defense.

We don’t need the Second Amendment to have the right to defend ourselves, including with firearms. The Second Amendment confers no such right. Rather, it recognizes the right. If bad guys can threaten lives with guns (which they will ALWAYS be able to do; which they have ALWAYS been able to do), innocent victims have the right to have access to guns to counter that threat. If we continue down the road to governments like the Third Reich, Stalinist Russia, Mao Zedong’s communist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela, and even British King James II, to use the full force of government to ignore individual rights and eliminate political opposition, we know that that its operatives and its armies will threaten American citizens with guns and all kinds of advanced weapons. We have the right to have access to guns, and also advanced weapons, to counter that threat.  Like kind for like kind. That is what is meant by being free and that is what is meant by having a meaningful right to self-defense.

We see a dramatic rise in violence by bad people and we see a dramatic rise in retaliatory violence by persons who are emotionally and mentally unstable. We are seeing something play out that people throughout history have also seen – bad people and evil-intentioned people will ALWAYS find ways to get weapons (or they will make them, such as Timothy McVeigh and the UnaBomber Ted Kaczynski, or they will weaponize other instrumentalities, such as cars, trucks, planes).  The rise in abnormal behavior, in criminal tendencies, in retaliatory mass shootings, in mental instability is something we should be focusing on. It’s the behavior – the diseased mind and the black heart – that seeks out the guns for violence. The guns don’t force themselves on those individuals. We should be focusing on what in our society is giving rise to this behavior – this troubling trend. Specifically, we should be looking at policies that government has forced on our communities through its seeming desire to change our social fabric and our social norms, to force new values on us and to force us to repress old conventional ones. Government – our public schools and our colleges and universities, our public offices, our public hospitals, the main-stream media (undoubtedly, an arm of the government’s establishment) – has been pushing a new agenda now for many years and that is “Diversity.”  We are indoctrinated to believe that diversity is the most important factor in college admissions, in the make-up of a student body and in the classroom, in the workforce, in our police forces, and in government; we are indoctrinated to belief that what we look like – what the color of our skin is, what country we came from, what gender we are, and what gender we want to be – is far more important than the competency and skills we bring to that school or that office. The government disregards the entire sad history of this country from the era when slavery was abolished until Civil Rights legislation was passed when we DID focus only on what a person looked like. Government doesn’t learn from history but rather repeats it. Government, through its willing and reckless refusal to enforce the most important of laws, our immigration laws and its willful blind eye to all the crime and lawlessness that has resulted, indoctrinates us, tacitly, that laws are not really to be taken too seriously. Government, contradicting what our parents used to teach us, undermines the importance of the rule of law and undermines the notion of equality under the law.

Morality is a thing of the past and so is religious observance in our daily lives. The family is no longer the bedrock and the pillar of society, and we see that in the laws of progressive states and in the court decisions in all other areas. We are intolerant to focus on the “nuclear family.” We are intolerant to refer to parents in gender terms. We are discriminatory if we dare accept the psychologists’ and the social scientists’ data that the proper emotional and psychological development of children depend on there being both a female and a male parent in the home and in their raising. We are discriminatory if we dare accept the well-established and reproducible data that children end up living in poverty, with a lack of education, and with psychological or domestic problems when they are raised in a single parent home. We are discriminatory if we dare accept the well-established and reproducible data that those who commit violence, those who commit mass murder, and those who embrace a criminal lifestyle are those raised without a father or without an effective father figure in their lives  We who lived in societies that respected and recognized traditional family values (and legislated to that effect) enjoyed its benefits. Societies were safer and children progressed through their childhood and teen years without incident and went on to become healthy and contributing members, having families of their own and raising their children successfully. We who recognize that reality and who recognize the robust data on the social benefits of a traditional family and the social problems created by the lack of such a family are antiquated and a threat to the progress of society in this country. Most families are no longer intact or have been re-established through second marriages, etc.  Children are psychological playthings – mere social experiments whose well-being comes at the expense of the desires or the recklessness of their parents or is merely considered as less important. Those were not the values of my parent’s day.

So, we don’t need the Second Amendment to exercise our rights of self-defense and self-protection. What we would like is our government to say “Government is prohibited from defining limits to the Second Amendment; the Constitution is clear on that.” We need our government to be of the kind that the Declaration of Independence promises us –  one that has as its primary purpose the security of our individual rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And one way to demonstrate that it is such a government is to respect the Second Amendment and not push to have it limited or as former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens urged, to have it abolished. Should that, in fact happen, and especially if it happens through legislation by the US Congress or by pronouncements from the bench by activist judges, then we have an illegitimate government and the provision in the Declaration which states “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…” is triggered and the people have the natural right to separate from it.

I have proposed a State Sovereignty Resolution to my legislators in the North Carolina General Assembly. I feel very strongly that the General Assembly, our legislative body (“The People’s Body”), should make it clear that the people’s right to have and bear arms is safe and secure in our state.

The text of my proposed State Sovereignty Resolution is provided below:

 

NORTH CAROLINA STATE SOVEREIGNTY RESOLUTION

A Bill Announcing the Intention to Nullify any and all Unconstitutional federal Gun Control Bills that the State of North Carolina and its People believe to be an Infringement of their Natural Rights of Self-Defense and Self-Protection as Recognized by the Second Amendment

The State of North Carolina asserts the following

A warm attachment to the Union of the States, to which it had pledged its loyalty in accordance with the terms of the Constitution, the compact that created it, and to that end, it has a duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the basis of that Union, because only a faithful observance of them can secure its existence and the public happiness;

Its recognition and respect for the lawful and constitutional process for altering the terms and meaning of the Constitution, including the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, which are the two procedures listed in Article V (the Amendment Process);

The Second Amendment recognizes that a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed;

The Second Amendment also recognizes that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed;

The Second Amendment recognizes the natural right of Self-Defense and Self-Protection, both on behalf of the State (“a free State,” by the way) and of the individual;

The Second Amendment doesn’t grant these rights but rather, it protects them, without condition or limitation, from the reaches of the federal government, especially the US Congress and its law-making power;

The phrase “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is clear and instructional on its face;

To affirm the point above further and to support it greater, the States specifically included a Preamble to explain the reason for the ten amendments to the new Constitution (amendments that were demanded by them and without them would have jeopardized and prevented the ratification of that document. The Preamble reads: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution”;

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes abundantly clear that the Constitution established a federal government of limited powers, and that in those limited objects of government, the federal government is limited even further by the ten amendments added (ratified by 3/4 of the States) on Dec. 15, 1791;

Just as the Supremacy Clause asserts the supremacy of the federal government with respect to the powers delegated to it, which are “few and defined” (Federalist No. 45, written by the same man, James Madison, who authored the Constitution), the Tenth Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights assert the supremacy of the States with respect to the powers reserved to them;

That one of the reserved powers of the State is the responsibility, the duty, to prevent unconstitutional federal laws, policies, executive actions, and court opinions from infringing on the rights of its people;

The Second Amendment has a very purposeful history; the rights recognized were not rights pulled out of thin air but rather stem from Natural Law and the concept that certain rights are endowed by a Creator (inherent in our very humanity);

Our Founders were not talking about hunting when they demanded that the Second Amendment be added to the Constitution; they were concerned about the freedom of the individual, and also the populace in general, to be armed in the face of a powerful and aggressive government – one that may send out a standing army in times of peace, one that may try to enact laws for gun and ammunition confiscation, and one that may eventually try to outright or effectively disarm its people;

The history of England, and indeed the history of many other nations, teaches us that when individuals are unable to defend themselves and their rights, they essentially have no rights. Rather, they have temporary permission from government to exercise rights until they somehow pose a serious threat to those in power.

James Madison once said: “If Men were angels, no government would be necessary.”  But what if it was the federal government that was not the angel?  The Second Amendment is the contingency plan in such a case;

James Madison also wrote (in Federalist No. 28): “If the representatives of the People betray their constituents, there is no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government”;

In addition to the natural right to defend one’s life and property, as well as those of family members and perhaps fellow citizens who are vulnerable,  there are other components of self-defense and self-protection other than the actual confrontation and neutralization of a violent intruder or attacker, that the people recognize – one being DETERRENCE;

Gun-Free Zones, homes without effective firearms, and individuals of sound mind disenfranchised in their right to have and bear arms serve as attractive targets for criminals and evil-intentioned, mentally-disturbed individuals;

The State of North Carolina, under the Tenth Amendment and according to compact principles, reserves the right to determine when the federal government has over-stepped its constitutional bounds with respect to legislation on gun control;

The State of North Carolina will NOT comply with any federal gun control law or policy that hinders or burdens its citizens in their free exercise of the natural right of self-defense and self-protection recognized by the Second Amendment;

In furtherance of its DUTY to prevent unconstitutional or abusive acts of the federal government on its citizens, and in furtherance of its DUTY to prevent the God-given and Natural rights of its People, the State of North Carolina will interpose using whatever means necessary to ensure that such gun control laws or policies (including judicial opinions), or any laws, policies, or court opinions for that matter in violation of the Constitution generally or the Bill of Rights specifically are not enforced in the State.

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

 

Notice that the Resolution only recognizes a rightful limitation of the right and ability to purchase and possess guns when it comes to persons who have a history of violence or mental instability. It is only in these two instances that individuals are unable to appreciate or respect the rights of others and therefore have been deemed to have forfeited their rights under the Second Amendment.

The Resolution that I have written (above) can easily be modified for a Sovereignty Bill or a Nullification Bill. If it is modified for such a bill, it should include the various types of interposition (action) that North Carolina would be willing to pursue (and will pursue) in order to shield its citizens from the effect of unconstitutional federal gun control laws. In other words, the bill should list the various types of action that the state and its officials will carry out in order to prevent such gun laws from being enforced on the citizens – including such things as arresting and jailing federal officers who attempt to come into the state to enforce the laws, not recognizing federal court opinions that erode or limit the Second Amendment, removing and disbarring judges from the bench who attempt to punish NC citizens under the federal law, empowering Sheriffs to not enforce the law or to share information with the federal government, refusal to allow its state officials to cooperate in the enforcement of the law, and challenging the law in court.

If you agree with the sentiment expressed in this article and if you agree with the points articulated in the Resolution, please share with others. If you agree that North Carolina should adopt this, or a similar, resolution affirming the Second Amendment, please contact your representative and send them a copy of what I have written. If you are not from North Carolina but would like your state legislature to adopt such a resolution, please contact your representative(s) and share this article – or at least the resolution.

All tyranny needs is for good people to do nothing.  The powerful progressive movement in our country will continue to misuse and manipulate elements of our government – the liberal, progressive, activist courts and the politically-deranged members of Congress – to strip our rights away. Our rights are what allow us to stand up for the truth and stand up against our aggressive government.  We cannot remain silent and we must not allow their agenda to continue to move forward. The Second Amendment – the right to have and bear guns for self-defense is where we must draw the line, as our founding generation did. That is what Patrick Henry was talking about when he exclaimed: “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!”  Without the right of self-defense and the right to use firearms for self-defense, we effectively have no secure rights. Without the Second Amendment, we have no effective way to protect the others.

Saul Alinsky, building on Lenin’s original plan for world conquest by communism, wrote a book entitled “Rules for Radicals” in which he outlined a plan to turn useless idiots into useful idiots for political purposes. The ultimate purpose, of course, is the creation of a large, concentrated, socialist government with the power to control the lives of its citizens. I never understood the attraction of a socialist state, especially in this country, and to so many people.  In a socialist state, individuals lose their rights, their freedoms, and their choices to the dictates of government. Alinsky, like Lenin, examined the various levels of control that a government would need in order to establish an effective socialist state and those levels are, in order:

(1)  Healthcare – A government that controls the people’s healthcare controls the people themselves

(2)  Poverty – people in poverty are easiest to control; hence, it is most beneficial for government to pursue policies that increase the level of poverty or keep individuals and their offspring in poverty

(3)  Debt – government will increase the national debt to unsustainable levels because then it can continue to tax heavily (and to increase taxation; to burden property). Taxation produces more poverty or at least, prevents many from improving their financial situation

(4)  Gun Control – disarming the people allows the government to establish a police state, if need be

(5)  Welfare – welfare allows government to take control of every aspect of a recipient’s life – food, housing, choices, even decisions to marry or to pursue education. Government will never get rid of welfare programs if its goal is socialism

(6)  Education – government needs to take control of what its youth learns…  what they read, what they listen to, and what things mean; it needs to use the education system as a means to indoctrinate its citizens.

(7)  Religion – a belief in God needs to be removed from schools, government, the marketplace, and the public square. A socialist government substitutes itself for the role of God.  A moral, religious people will always question the legitimate role of government and so, it must minimize this faction.

(8)  Class Warfare – government needs to divide its people into poor and wealthy — the “have’s” and the “have-not’s.”  It also needs to divide people along racial lines – characterizing one group as “victims” and the other as “oppressors” (or as “beneficiaries”). This way it is easier to demonize the wealthy, the empowered, the benefitted classes and therefore, to take from them — their money (through taxation – to benefit the poor), and their positions (through “diversity”-enrichment programs). It is easier to re-engineer society by creating division, hatred, and distrust.

Looking at this list, government has achieved every one of these levels of control – EXCEPT gun control. Is it any wonder that the left is pursuing it at such a rabid level lately?  Is it any wonder that it uses every tragedy to attack the Second Amendment?

So again, if you agree with the sentiment expressed in this article and if you agree with the points articulated in the Resolution, please share with others. And if you live in North Carolina, please contact your state rep and send him a copy.

There was a time when North Carolina was the most liberty-minded of all the colonies and all the states. She has a profound and impressive history. My hope is that her legacy will live on with her respect for its citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

[NOTE:  I wanted to include this disclaimer, after the fact. Doing research for my April 5 article, I learned that the 8 Levels of Government Control to Establish a Social State is not included in Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals,” and in fact, is not attributable to him at all. Some, however, have attributed some of the levels to Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven (“The Cloward-Piven Strategy”).  In my article: “Government Control of the People – The Progressive Scheme:  Making Useful Idiots Out of Useless Idiots,” I discuss Saul Alinsky and his book, and its potential for transforming the character of our country, but I also address this misinformation about the 8 levels.  The article is posted here:   https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2018/04/05/government-control-of-the-people-the-progressive-model-making-useful-idiots-out-of-useless-idiots/ ]

 

- 2018 (gray shirt, March 24, 2018) - BEST

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment