This is the aircraft that ended World War II, Enola Gay, at the National Air Museum at Dulles Field near Washington, D.C.
Some folks have asked along the way about my passion for naval warfare history, and especially submarines. Maybe this poem will shed some light on it...
The Klaxxon's Call
by Charles Heller
You're just a hunk of steel & cork
a small, tight place where many men worked.
And fought, and bled, and died.
You brought them home, fom the sea.
And we love you for it, but why?
What are you girl, but pipe and diesel & valves,
that brings a tear to all who served,
and the respect of all involved.
You're welds and seams and hatches; over time a series of patches:
What makes us sad when your time is finished
and your hull is by the scrappers diminished?
Tang and Wahoo, Trigger, Shark,
what makes your names for us stark?
Why so sad are we at your passing,
why mourn we so your patrols everlasting?
The men who built you, and and drove you by orders
Do we feel their spirits, in your quarters?
Do you hold our dreams, in such trim,
that you'e called us to a brotherhood of the 'phin?
You hold our dreams in ballast for action,
and call to mind, the blaring klaxxon
Though your hulls only in static display thrive,
When we visit you, our hearts say,
"DIVE, DIVE."
1 27 13 America's Fabric
Today there is a raging debate in our republic about so-called "gun control," which is really just a euphemism for theft of rights. Hopefully, "gun control" will be a phrase that is eventually, "euphemized," and put out of our collective misery.
I want to provide a context for several of the arguments which are used in the modern lexicon of those who would attempt to separate you from your rights, but first I want to define a term. Many of us who can read the Constitution and understand it's historical context, have known for a long time that the right to keep an bear arms, was not created by the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment says Quote: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does NOT say, "the right to keep and bear arms is hereby created." The right pre-existed the Amendment, plain and simple.
The 2008 decision from the Supreme Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller, reaffirmed that this right is a primary individual right. (For clarity, I am not the Heller in question. That is Dick Heller, a life-long resident of The District of Columbia, and a special police officer who works at one of the government buildings there.)
As a fundamental civil right, the right to keep and bear arms has some natural enemies - people who want to aggrandize the power of the state over the power of the individual. While there are example of this on both the left and the right, the FACT remains that anyone who is so prejudiced against your fundamental right, is by definition, a bigot. A bigot who is against your rights, is by definition, an anti-rights bigot. They are not anti-gun, because they do not object to the guns on the side of soldiers and police. They are anti-rights, because they are against the idea of you being at parity of small arms with your government. That is a classic example of bigotry.
The argument though, sometimes used by those anti-rights bigots, is that the framers of the Constitution, did not envision semi-automatic and fully automatic weaponry, and that therefore new restrictions are needed to combat modern technology. To that, I wish to present the erudite and refined argument: hog wash! The idea that the founder of this country were not aware of technological changes in weaponry, is too specious to believe.
First, look at the text of the Constitution itself. In Article 1, Section 8, clause 7. Congress is grant the authority, Quote, "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
If the founders did not know that technology would improve weapons and weapons systems, why did they build a promotion of the effusion of knowledge and technology, into our founding document?
Further study reveals that breech loading and multiple shot weapons existed in the time of the drafting of the constitution, and certainly by the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, four years later. The Puckle Gun was invented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667-1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer. And who says lawyers are useless, anyway, but I digress.
The Puckle Gun is a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder. It was intended for shipboard use to prevent boarding. The barrel was 3 feet (0.91 m) long with a bore of 1.25 inches (32 mm). It had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes?this at a time when the standard soldier's musket could at best be loaded and fired three times per minute. Two examples are on display at former Montagu homes: One at Boughton House England, and another at Beaulieu Palace in Essex, England. There is a replica of a Puckle gun at Bucklers Hard Maritime Museum in Hampshire. Blackmore's British Military Firearms 1650-1850 lists "Puckle's brass gun in the Tower of London" as illustration 77.
The idea that General Washington, or Alexander Hamilton who served as a Colonel under him did not know of these weapons and others like it, stretches credulity well beyond even anti-rights biggoted standards of reason. The founders knew damned good and well about the technologically developing state of weaponry - so much so that they planned for it in the Constitution.
They WANTED the citizens to be as well armed as the government. Let's consut a few of them for their opinions.
To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
"Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee American Statesman, 1788
"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; . " Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824.
And of course, the capstone of the comments: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure
--- Thomas Jefferson
And now if you would, let us indulge in a fantasy. Imagine for a moment that we are standing on the fields of New Jersey, on the banks of the Delaware River., in 1776. Someone is about to demonstrate for General Washington, the latest invention for his troops, the M-16 rifle.Let's listen: (Sound effect of full auto)
"Well General Washington, what do you think of the weapon?"
Can you imagine him saying, "Oh no, this weapon is far too powerful for the American Citizen to own What would happen if someone took one into a school?"
Would he not be more likely to have given them to his men, saying, "Sakes alive, a people could be free with these," and give them to his men and tell them to take them home after the war?
The modern argument is about semi-automatics. First, a little background. Semi-autos have been around since The first successful design for a semi-automatic rifle , attributed to German-born gunsmith Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher, who unveiled the design in 1885. The Model 85 was followed by the equally innovative Mannlicher Models 91, 93 and 95 semi-automatic rifles. Although Mannlicher earned his reputation with his bolt action rifle designs, he also produced a few semi-automatic pistols, including the Steyr Mannlicher M1894.
A few years later, American gunsmith John Moses Browning developed the first successful semi-automatic shotgun, the Browning Auto-5, which was first manufactured in 1902 by Fabrique Nationale de Herstal and sold in America under the Browning name. Production of the Auto-5 was finally ended in 1999.
Semi-automatic refers to a firearm which uses the force of recoil or gas to eject the empty case and load a fresh cartridge into the firing chamber for the next shot and which allows repeat shots solely through the action of pulling the trigger. A double-action revolver also requires only a trigger pull for each round that is fired but is not considered semi-automatic since the manual action of pulling the trigger is what advances the cylinder, not the energy of the preceding shot.
Fully automatic vs semi-automatic. The usage of the term automatic may vary according to context. Gun specialists point out that the word automatic is sometimes misunderstood to mean fully automatic fire when used to refer to a self-loading, semi-automatic firearm not capable of fully automatic fire. In this case, automatic refers to the loading mechanism, not the firing capability.
The term "automatic pistol" almost exclusively refers to a semi-automatic (i.e. not fully automatic) pistol. With handguns, the term "automatic" is commonly used to distinguish semi-automatic pistols from revolvers. The term "auto-loader" may also be used to describe a semi-automatic handgun. However, to avoid confusion, the term "automatic rifle" is generally, conventionally and best restricted to a rifle capable of fully automatic fire. Both uses of the term "automatic" can be found; the exact meaning must be determined from context.
The first use of the term "assault rifle," came into being with the German made "strumgewher 42" a medium german machine gun in 8 mm Mauser caliber, roughly equivalent to the American .30-06 cartrige.
The term, "semi-automatic assault rifle," is a made up item by Josh Sugarman of the "Violence Policy Institute. It is a term engineered to confuse people about which guns are legal. True assault weapons are select-fire, which means you can select for them to shoot fully automatically. Pull the trigger, and the gun keeps shooting until it's empty. Semi-autos only give you one shot per pull of the trigger. They simply load the next cartrige for you instead of your finger having to do it by pulling the trigger, such as on a revolver.
Fully automatic guns have been heavily regulated since the 1934 gun control act, which placed a heavy tax, $200 per gun, silencer, short barreled shotgun, or short barreled rifle. The number of machine guns in private hands in the U,.S. is about 225,000. The number of them was frozen as of 1986, so no new ones are coming into private hands since then. As with any market, if you freeze the supply and accelerate the demand, the price will skyrocket, and it has.
Sugarman of the so-called Violence olicy Center, famously said, of semi-automatics, that Q ""The public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
The usage of the term automatic may vary according to context. Gun specialists point out that the word automatic is sometimes misunderstood to mean fully automatic fire when used to refer to a self-loading, semi-automatic firearm not capable of fully automatic fire. In this case, automatic refers to the loading mechanism, not the firing capability.
Long story short, assault weapons are not a problem in American Society, no matter what some liars would like you to think.
Next is the argument, "why would you evern need 30 rounds, I mean, you could not use that to hunt?"Well, besides the fact that the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting, it is certainly now legal in arizona to leave a full capacity magazine in your gun while hunting. This has more to do with the fact that in much of Arizona, the places [eople hunt are loaded with armed drug smugglers, and it is a wise choice to be fully armed. But beyond that, 30 round magazines are what the government folks carry, and your tax dollars went to buy them.
In the event of a tyrannical take over and attempted subversion of the constitution, are you suggesting that the armed defenders should not have the same firepower that their taxes paid to finance? Do you sincerely believe that those were the principles upon which this country was founded? If so, you might want to contact your civics teacher for a remedial lesson.
First of all, a free man or woman should NEVER have to justify why they NEED anything. If they are free, to whom would they answer? But as the Declaration says, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, might cause them to offer some supportive reasoning.
As Rabbi Dovid Bendory of gunrabbi.com says, "Multiple assailants. Whether on the street or during a home invasion, violent criminals often move in pairs or packs. Realize that you will never shoot as well as your score at the range when you are under the unbelievable stress of a life-or-death encounter. Which would you prefer to have in your magazine in such an event? Ten rounds? Or fifteen or seventeen? Or perhaps even 30? " Second, Private citizens always face the threat before the police arrive. Private citizens were on the front line at Tucson, Columbine, and Virginia Tech. Why limit our effectiveness?
You should logically want whatever cops choose to carry. How many cops choose a ten round magazine? If politicians want to hinder us "little people" with a ten round limit, they should also hamper the police with the same limit. Let's see how far that flies.
Civil disturbances. Watch the Reginald Denny beating video some time. Review the looting insanity of Hurricane Katrina. You've got a crazed mob of ten, twenty, or fifty people headed in your direction. Are ten rounds enough? Might you want fifteen, or seventeen, or even thirty?
Oh, and while you're at it, perhaps bring from memory those Los Angeles Korean store owners standing guard on the roofs of their businesses with semi-auto AKs during the Rodney King riots. No one messed with those stores, did they?
Your assailants may well be armed with full capacity magazines themselves. No ban will affect these criminals; it will actually encourage them. Do you really think the gang bangers care about federal laws?
In nearly every instance it is not a cop on the "front line" of a violent situation. It is private citizens who must face the "lone gunman" until (and sometimes even after) the police arrive. See "Dial 911 and Die", available from http://www.jpfo.org/. Is the life of a policeman more important than yours?
Now we move to other historical precedents. Did you know that within the Catholic church, there is a movement, led by John Snyder of Washington D.C., to name a patron saint for hand gunners? Father Gabriel Posenti was a Catholic seminarian whose marksmanship and proficiency with handguns single-handedly saved the village of Isola, Italy from a band of 20 terrorists in 1860.
In 1860, a band of soldiers from the army of Garibaldi entered the mountain village of Isola, Italy. They began to burn and pillage the town, terrorizing its inhabitants.
Possenti, with his seminary rector's permission, walked into the center of town, unarmed, to face the terrorists. One of the soldiers was dragging off a young woman he intended to rape when he saw Possenti and made a snickering remark about such a young monk being all alone.
Possenti quickly grabbed the soldier's revolver from his belt and ordered the marauder to release the woman. The startled soldier complied, as Possenti grabbed the revolver of another soldier who came by. Hearing the commotion, the rest of the soldiers came running in Possenti's direction, determined to overcome the rebellious monk.
At that moment a small lizard ran across the road between Possenti and the soldiers. When the lizard briefly paused, Possenti took careful aim and struck the lizard with one shot, in the left eye. Turning his two handguns on the approaching soldiers, Possenti commanded them to drop their weapons. Having seen his handiwork with a pistol, the soldiers complied. Possenti ordered them to put out the fires they had set, and upon finishing, marched the whole lot out of town, ordering them never to return. The grateful townspeople escorted Possenti in triumphant procession back to the seminary, thereafter referring to him as "the Savior of Isola".
Now while I am sure that today, some people would auger for the posthumas de-frocking of St. Gabriel Posenti due to his cruelty to lizards, there is a long tradition, even within religious communities, of armed self-defense. None of it has ever relied upon a background check.
Background checks are a placebo, a useless "feel good" drug, to placate the citizens, and make them think that we are prohibiting criminals and lunatics from getting guns. People in their right minds, understand that criminals do not obey laws, ergo the designation, "criminal."
What folks who are not part of the gun culture do not realize, is that registration is the holy grail of gun control. Once you have all guns registered, you can control them. If a significant number of the guns in a society are not known, they cannot be controlled. The same is true of ammunition. Own a list of the people who have it, and you own the people's behavior. It's that simple.
One of the most important things we could do as Americans in terms of staying free, is making sure that government does NOT know who is armed, and with what they are armed. Unless a person has demonstrated hostile intent by previous criminal act, the government of a free country has no interest and no business in knowing what arms they might possess.
There is also a tradition in the U.S. of not engaging in what is know as a "prior restraint" on rights. The rule against prior restraint was undisputed for much of U.S. history. The landmark case of near v. minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931), finally settled the issue, with the U.S. Supreme Court finding that the First Amendment imposed a heavy presumption against the validity of a prior restraint.
In Near, the Court struck down a Minnesota state law that permitted public officials to seek an Injunction to stop publication of any "malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine, or other periodical." The statute was used to suppress publication of a small Minneapolis newspaper, the Saturday Press, which had crudely maligned local police and political officials, often in anti-Semitic terms. The law provided that once a newspaper was enjoined, further publication was punishable as Contempt of court.
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, in his majority opinion, called the law "the essence of censorship" and declared it unconstitutional. With its decision, the Court incorporated the First Amendment freedom of the press into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This incorporation made freedom of the press fully applicable to the states.
While this is usually applied to the First Amendment, the Second is no less fundamental a right than the First.
The Heller Decision in 2008 against D.C. once and for all put in writing that the Second Amendment was an individual right, and NOT conditional upon militia service, and laid to rest the lie that its meaning was that the state could arm it militias. That lie began in a 1905 Kansas Supreme Court case, and seemed to achieve its own momentum. Luckily, the Supreme Court of the United States shot it down, before it achieved orbital velocity. And some said that star wars wouldn't work. (Reagan voice) Well, there they go again.
The set up for the future securing of our right to keep and bear arms was that Heller Decision, but the clincher of those rights was the incorporation upon the states of that decision in the McDonald vs. City of Chicago Case. In that case, the Supremes said that the Second Amendment was binding upon the states, thus opening the floodgate to retrieve our right to keep and bear arms once more.
A recent 7th Circuit Court Decision has also told the State of Illinois that its total prohibition against some form of licensed carry by its citizens is also unconstitutional. The legislature has 180 days to come up with some form of citizen carry system.
I won't say Hallelujah until I see the legislation, but if it looks like one of the "shall issue states" such as we are in Arizona, or Florida, or any number of others, we all ought to celebrate for our brother's freedom.
As we wind towards a close, let us remember that in years past, it was much easier to get access to guns. Before 1968, a fellow could have looked in the back of Boy's Life Magazine, cut out an ad, and had a .22 rifle mailed to his house in the U.S. Mail system. In those times, we did not have school shootings.
Many of us, even in Urban environments, had schools with a range in them. Lane Technical High School had not only a range, but M-14 battle rifles for it's ROTC Program, and the rifles were in working order. We marched in parades and on the campus with real, working rifles in those days. Now they are banned from there even in the ROTC program, and now we have school shootings.
If you want to teach children how to responsibly handle dangerous weapons, you will instill in them a respect for those tools, and you will lessen the mystique of them. You will also begin to transfer the awesome responsibility of adulthood to children as they mature into the ability to handle that responsibility. But if you try to prevent drowning by banning water, rather than teach them to swim, the results will continue to under whelm our sense of decency and proportion.
I want to encourage all of you to be proud Americans, who are not afraid to teach your children the judicious use of force, and, G-d forbid it should be necessary, deadly force. Only in that way, will our children be ready for the responsibility of leading a free nation.
The first federal statutes governing the militia of the United States were enacted in 1792. There were some revisions in 1795. During the Civil War, and amendment removed the language that had restricted militia membership to free whites.
The old militia statutes were repealed and replaced by the Militia Act of 1903, 32 Stat 775, commonly known as the "Dick Act" for its sponsor Charles F.W. Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard.
The Dick Act gave formal federal recognition - and financial support - to the National Guard, which had begun as a volunteer state-based civic organization after the Civil War. According to the Dick Act, the "organized militia" of the United States is the National Guard, plus the Naval Militias maintained by some states. 10 USC Sect 311 (b) (1)
The Dick Act also defines the "unorganized militia."The unorganized militia is all able- bodied men between the ages of 17 and 44 years of age who are United States citizens (or "have made a declaration of intention to become citizens"), and who do not belong to the organized militia. 10 USC Sect 311 (a), (b) (2). They are subject to call-up by the federal government in order to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, {or} repel invasions," under the Constitution's Militia Clauses. (Clause 15 of Article I, Sect. 8 is the "Calling Forth" clause. Clause 16 grants Congress the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia.)
Thew best book on the early history of the National Guard, including the Dick Act, is Jerry M. Cooper, The Rise of the National Guard: The Evolution of the American Militia, 1865-1920 (2002). During the late 19th and early 20th century, the National Guard and the National Rifle Association were closely intertwined.
The Dick Act has long been a part of the Second Amendment debate in the United States, since the Act plainly shows that Militia is not solely the National Guard.
These days, however, a ridiculous e-mail is being circulated, which claims that the Dick Act absolutely prohibits any form of gun control for men 17-44. Further, the e-mail asserts, preposterously, that the Dick Act is unrepealable, because repeal would violate the Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto clauses. David Hardy's blog deconstructs this e-mail over at his excellent blog, of Arms and the Law. Hardy's Blog is mandatory reading for anyone with a serious interest in firearms law and policy.
Grotesquely wrong e-mails such as this are, objectively speaking, helpful to gun prohibitionists. To the extent that pro-rights activists mistakenly rely on the e-mail, and use it as the basis for arguments that they send to elected officials in opposition to proposed anti-gun laws, the activists are wasting their time with arguments that are plainly incorrect, and therefore will not be persuasive to elected officials. Further, some readers who fall for this email hoax may imagine themselves immune from a vast array of repressive laws which are being pushed in Congress and the state legislatures, some of which have already been enacted in New York. As a result, these readers may sit on the sidelines politically, failing to get involved at a time when citizen activism is essential.
Dick Act mythmaking
Posted by David Hardy · 25 January 2013 01:54 PM
I've rec'd 3-4 copies already of an email claiming that the Dick Act of 1902 ... well, let me post it:
"DICK ACT of 1902 - CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government This criminal Cabal is counting on the fact that the American Citizens don't know this, their rights and the constitution. Don't prove them right.
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws."
No, the Dick Act repealed the Militia Act of 1792, and created the National Guard system. It says nothing about gun control. And it was extensively re-written in a couple of post-WWI Army Acts.
"It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. ** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE ** The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army."
I believe 10 USC 311 survives (and is almost the only section that has survived) from the original Act. That breaks the militia into two classes, organized (Guard) and unorganized. Why would the regular army have been part of the militia?
"The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy."
No authority cited for this, I notice. In any event, such a right would vanish once a person hits 45.
"The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights."
There is no such thing as a statute that cannot be repealed. The bill of attainder clause prevents Congress from convicting people without a trial. The ex post facto ban prevents punishment, or increased punishment, of actions taken before the law in question was passed. As noted above, most of the Dick Act was rewritten by the Army Acts (I think of 1916 and 1920), so it HAS been repealed.
"The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are only purposes for which the General Government the can call upon the National Guard."
Those are the only purposes for which the government can call out the militia. They got around this in the post WWI Army Acts by organizing the Guard as part of the reserve forces of the regular army, etc., and by requiring dual enlistment: any Guardsman also takes an oath to the U.S..
A bit of history: in 1912 the Attorney General indeed ruled that the militia could not be used outside the US. Then came WWI. The government dealt with that ruling by simply drafting National Guardsmen en masse. The Guard didn't care for this: its units were broken up, officers became enlisted men, etc.. So after the War, they were supporters of the system of dual enlistment, so that their units could be called up as units.
11 25 12 What Can We Do In Response To The Recent Election?
This is the text of an essay I gave on the air 11 25 12. If you would like to hear the program, with the callers, it is archived on www.libertywatchradio.com/listen, in the right column.
11 25 12, Sunday, 1 PM Hour, America Armed & Free, AM 1030 KVOI Tucson
First of all, we're Americans. We do not lie down and give up. Just because a citizen of another country gots elected president in violation of the Constitution, does not mean that we throw in the towel. Hey, we survived it when those Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, as John Belushi said in the personae of Captain "Wild Bill" Kelso, didn't we?
As a society, the parts of us that don't work, such as, say, the City of New York, tend to get bypassed by the parts of us which DO work, such as Arizona Public Power and other utilities going up there to help restore power.
Sooner of later, if you know someone close to you who is either a heart patient, or in my case, someone who was involved in cardiac care, you find out a few things about the way the body works. One of the reasons I am told that people over 50 tend to have a higher survival rates in the event of a first heart attack, is called"collateral circulation."
Collateral circulation is a process where the heart in effect, senses blockages, and begins to build capillary circulation around areas of blockage. In effect, the heart tries to create it's own bypass.
This develops over time, ergo it is people over 50, I am told, that have the better chance of surviving such an event as a first heart attack. I am NO expert on this, but that is how the concept works. Well folks, it is time for a little collateral circulation around our government, both for the survival of our way of life and traditions, and the prosperity of its people.
If you look at historical events where government displayed what John Jay called "it's propensity to folly," you see examples where Americans, or in some cases soon to be, Americans, rallied themselves to action. The Boston Tea Party, The Battle of Athens, Tennessee in 1946, and the efforts at victory gardens, metals recycling, and women entering the workplace al a "Rosie The Riveter," during World War Two, are all examples of a resilient people.
We are a country built on big ideals. We are also a country which has been under attack for those very ideals, since at least the 1850's, and probably before that as well, not to mention the rocky start we got off to during the Revolutionary War.
In short, we have NEVER been a people who were a stranger to controversy, nor have we ever been a country whose people were reticent to pick up an axe, shovel, or when called for, a rifle, and handle our problems. (Not advocating rifles here to solve current problems, just using that rhetorical device for this example.)
Government, at the federal level, has been growing at an alarming rate since FDR. That rate of change began to multiply in the era of "The Great Society," and has accelerated ever since. Technology, or government's use of it, has largely augmented big government in this quest. That same technology has also tremendously augmented the possibility for freedom of the individual citizen, not only in the U.S., but also around the globe.
Technology has facilitated the ability of the individual citizen, to acquire almost any information he or she desires, usually with the device on their belt or in their purse. That same advancement, has also allowed government to be the most invasive it has ever been in human history, but NOWHERE NEAR the amount of snoopery it will be able to commit in the relatively near future.
The data center that is being built currently in Utah by the NSA, has as its purpose, to vacuum up every single e-mail and phone call in the U.S., and probably quite a few outside the U.S., and store them permanently in non-volatile memory. That means in perpetuity, folks, or forever, whichever comes first.
For those of us who value our privacy, it's gone. But there are things, which you CAN do to retain more of it. First, limit your use of credit and debit cards. Use cash, when possible. Withdraw money in person at banks, rather than through ATM's. It is no less trackable, but use of ATM's creates a trackable pattern of movement, which is used to make a profile of one's activities. Why give them ammo?
Another wonderful thing you can do to have more privacy, is do business in the used market. Private transactions between cash sellers are not currently trackable, unless done within the range of a security camera somewhere. There are more and more of those around, too.
Speaking of which, do not make the mistake, of thinking that you are either alone of in private, in many of the places you go, and certainly do not labor under the delusion that most of the places you go, are not trackable, or discoverable. If you disagree, I offer for your consideration, the former Chief of the CIA, David Petraeus. If the top spook in the U.S. can't keep a brief affair secret, what hope of privacy do you and I have of doing so?
Realistically, unless what we do involves a security clearance, or some other type of higher than normal level of scrutiny, the chances of something like that coming to light are not as great as are those of someone in a high level position, but the fact remains, that those indiscretions are discoverable.
We are going, at some point, to have more inflation, and likely lots of it. The Keynesian economists, and those who want the goodies that such economics provides (printing money and trying to stimulate the economy with it) have already greatly depreciated the value of the dollars that you and I have in the bank, and that of the paychecks we receive. The only ways we are going to get out of that, is to cut spending, and stimulate growth by reducing regulation. EVERY GOVERNMENT PROGRAM WHICH IS DESIGNED TO "HELP," WILL ADD TO THE BURDEN OF THOSE WHO ARE "HELPING."
Most taxation in the U.S., are the proceeds of a theft. Only those taxes which are USE taxes, such as excises on tires, gasoline, and ammunition and firearms (such as the Pitman Robertson Act Taxes) are voluntary. You can chose not to buy such things, and avoid those taxes, or in the case of tires, the secondary market. That is why government wants to wreck those markets - they escape the taxes.
Can I ask you in the audience who listen to Swap Shop, a rhetorical question, but one about which I really want you to think? Really, please pause what you are doing, if you are able, and give this your thoughtful attention for just a moment. Why is it that I am so hot about the Swap Shop?
Why is it that I call it "the crucible of the FREE market? Could it possibly be that it is EXACTLY as I say, Q "The UNREGULATED free market, governed ONLY by common courtesy, and common sense?" Is it possible that the market which encompasses the Swap Shop, and other programs like it around the country, and Craigslist, and Backpage, and EBay, are parts of the market where at least for now, trade truly is free, and it is for the most part, unregulated? Could that be?
Ernie Hancock, activist and steroidal libertarian, has a favorite expression, which I'll quote here - "freedom is the answer; what's the question?"
The answer to our economic woes, and our temporal woes, lie in our freedom, industry, and self-sufficiency.That's right folks, the answer to our present crisis, is in the mirror. For me, that amounts to being honest with myself, and losing 40 pounds. I'm working on it. It also means doing a better job of keeping my word, which needs work, too.
It means reducing personal debt, for 2 reasons: First, having no debt gives one more options, and less pressure, so that he can peruse his dreams rather than just his work. Second, a nation of men and women who do not owe debt, will spawn a nation of children and grandchildren who will go to Congress as children of thrift, rather than demons of debt.
What does it mean for you? What can you do, NOT for your country, but for YOU, and your family? The so-called, "public good," is best served by people acting in behalf of their own enlightened self-interest. When you act in the area of your own prosperity, without force or fraud, you foster a community and ergo a nation, of doers, not takers.
Alexis De Tocqueville, when he came to visit this country in the 1830's, said that "America is a great country, because it is good."
Well folks, we have strayed from being good, about half of us, that is. About half of us are takers, and about half of us are the taken from. Now some people have a legitimate claim to their pensions and disabilities. Folks who are truly handicapped, or through no fault of their own, are unable to provide for themselves. But those who seek to be supported by others, just because they can, are social barnacles, and there is not a whole lot we can do about them within our political system. We have such in the states, with the exception of New York, Illinois, especially California, and a couple of other states. But we have it in the state governments.
Look at the states that have their budgets under control, and look at what is happening, economically, in them. Texas and Arizona are prime examples. Both have growing economies, but in Arizona, only North of the Gila River. Now why is that?
Until we can get some people in office who understand how to read a profit and loss statement, and balance a budget, we are not going to have responsible government. That is the ugly truth about it. You can call into this program, and Buckmaster, and John C., and Emil, and Huckabe, and Miller, and rant all you want about the immorality of people who do not obey their oath, but it ain't gonna change until 2 things happen:
1) You find people and help elect them to office that carry a copy of the constitution in their pocket, and wear out same by consulting it. We need to REALLY get behind the Antenori's and the Gowan's and the Kavenaugh's of the world, and support them. I did not do enough last election cycle, and I am going to change that next cycle.
2) We need, as much as possible, to form individual collateral circulation, around government, to achieve prosperity without the help of others. By that, I mean self- sufficiency, not isolation. As part of that we need to form associations with small groups of like-minded people, who can mutually assist others in the production of things, goods, and services.
Self-sufficiency is the bane of government nannyists. I once had an animal control officer come to my property, when I lived West of the Tucson Mountains, on an acre. He said that my dogs were seen running loose. I showed him my enclosed kennel with redundant water source, and that seemed to satisfy him. He then asked me to call if I saw stray dogs, and I said that I wouldn't. He was enraged. "WHY!," he demanded?
Because I don't need you, I told him. "I like the visits from the neighborhood dogs."
"But what if they are vicious!?"
"I hope it doesn't come to that, but I have the tools to solve those problems myself."
"Well, what if the dog, attacks a child?"
""Well if it is my child, I will shoot the dog."
"You gonna go around shooting stray dogs?!!"
"No sir, only the ones that go after my kids. If it's at someone else's house, they'll have to shoot those dogs themselves, that's what parents are for. Now please get off my property, now that your job is done."
You and I, need to develop a greater culture of self-sufficiency. Look at Phil Cedar. He saw weeds, and he had an idea: have people go out and whack the weeds. It worked so well, that it has shamed government into doing the ones that tourists see when they drive around. Private effort works!
Public good is best served by the accomplishment of private goals. Decide what you want for your life and income, find out what you like, and WORK in that area.
For me, it is the right to keep and bear arms, and I have found myself 3 jobs, that together, make me a living, mostly in the area of that. My other love is radio, and I make the rest of my living from that. Work in the area of your passion, and money will happen.
We need to consider, all having small businesses. The reason will become clear, but the beginning thing is that it leads us on a path to greater self-sufficiency. The other reason is that it gives us tax deductions.
No matter what else I have done, I have always had some sort of a side business. Everyone can do that. Amway is a wonderful company, but there are hundreds of other companies like that that if you make a sincere effort to make a profit, you can deduct some of your mileage, a home office, and many other things. It's not the only answer, but it is one of them.
Maybe it is a craft business. We have 2 street fairs a year on 4th Avenue. Are you good at making anything? Do you know that there is now a license you can get to do a small bakery from your home, and vend to area merchants?
Why don't you find 5 recipes, start working on it, and find 2 or 3 restaurants to supply with fresh rolls? Will it make you wealthy? No, but it will put you more in charge of your income, combined with what else you do, AND, it will give government LESS revenue, if you take full advantage of your tax deductions! The only way government will get more out of you, is if you make a lot of money, and that is a good thing!
The next Thing we need to do, is figure out ways to starve government of money. That is part of Atlas, shrugging. We have got to operate in ways that make it harder for government to collect and spend money. That goes with what I was saying earlier with having a very small business - very hard to pin people like that, down, and much more difficult to regulate them.
Why do you think that restaurants are cutting the hours of their employees so that so many of them are part time? It is the regulations within Obama Care that they are attempting to avoid. You can, to a large extent, do the same thing by engaging in activities which are not highly regulated.
We also need to work with state level orgs like Goldwater Institute, who write model laws and Constitutional amendments to the state Constitution, to make it harder for government to spend our money. One of those is the Scharf-Norton Center For Constitutional Litigation, at Goldwater. Anytime government steps out of line with the state Constitution, they might get sued. Wonderful idea.
Next: Stop cooperating with government, especially at the federal level. If you have federal inspector who comes to your place of business, shun them. If you have federal officers who come to you for help and information, politely tell them that you decline to converse.
Our government depends on our cooperation to operate. It's based on what is generally known, as "voluntary consent." Well, I am here to suggest to you that you might want to consider withdrawing consent, politely. At the same time, we need to form relationships with the HIRED help, the legislators. Them, we need to influence, but the ones at the ground level of enforcement, SHUN THEM.
Do they need access to your property to inspect? Do not interfere, but do not make it easy. I know a restaurant owner, whose voice you would recognize. He got an IRS audit notice. He told them it was not possible to bring his records, but they could come to do it there. His office is right next to the oven, and he placed a tray of garlic on top of the oven. It was a short audit, even with the offer of all the free lemonade he could drink.
Consider prayerfully, whether or not you need another person, or governments permission, to do work on your won house. Why should any man, ask permission of ANYONE, to use his own property, provided that it will not damage or diminish his neighbor's property?
One thing I DO advise - keep your registration and insurance current. It stops government from having jurisdiction to look up your kilt any further. Make sure your tail lights are not broken, either. Nuf said.
Next: It is YOUR responsibility to educate your children, NOT the public school system's. You may chose to delegate that responsibility to them, but that does not remove the moral responsibility to educate them. Do you read to them? Consider books that educate them about money, instead of Mary Had A Little Lamb. And if you can't find such a book, why don't you read them bible passages and parables about the proper handling of money?
There is no reason on God's Green Earth, why your child should leave your home to live on his or her own, without knowing how to balance a checkbook, pay bills, cancel a credit or debit card, open a bank account, and do all the mundane things that an adult does. Do your kids know how insurance works? Do they understand what life insurance is for? It is not the school's job to teach them that, it is yours. If we have a nation of economic illiterates, whose fault is that? If it's YOUR KID, IT'S YOURS!
Next: Preparedness. It would be goodness if every house in America, which has the legal ability to be armed, were. You do not have to bristle with guns. People joke with me about being well armed, but the truth is, I do not have that much. What I do have, works well, shoots to point of aim, and I practice with it.
If all you ever have is one gun, get a six shoot .38 revolver, and 1000 rounds of ammo. Get some to practice with, and some decent, hollow point ammo. If you can handle a shotgun, it's a great home defense weapon, but it is not that great for moving with, only being stationary, unless you are well trained. Look up training classes on the internet, find something that fits you, and get at least the minimum. I hope you never need it.
Food: Consider having at least a MINIMUM of 30 days, plus some to give away or barter with. Better 6 months. The LDS Folks have it perfect at one year.
Water: Think about a rainwater retention system, and store a few hundred gallons. Get a hand pump, a filtration system, and keep it covered and with the right amount of bleach in it to stay potable. This is the desert. You could live a week without food, but not water. If nothing else, use 5 gallon buckets. You and your wife can live a month on 10 buckets like that.
I am not a conspiracy theory guy, but I can tell you that if you want to round up a bunch of people, all you have to do in the desert is create a water shortage..
Power. Did you not learn from Hurricane Sandy to own a generator? Keep a couple of 5 gal Gerry cans of gas, and once a month, run the gen set until empty, refill it, and put Sta-Bil in the tank.
This might sound rude, but how much toilet paper do you keep in your home? Is it enough to last a month? Two? Three? How much would that cost to keep in stock? Do you have some rope to make a cloths line in case you can't use electricity? Do you own a "wash board," and a bucket, just in case? Ace Hardware, people.
Tools: Do you each at least own a Leatherman or similar tool? A hammer, a few nails, a few screws, and sufficient flashlights and candles for a month? Do you know how cheap led flashlights are getting?
Dog food: if you have enough for you, do you have enough for them?
You want great info on preparedness? READ SURVIVAL BLOG. John Wesley Rawles thereof, also has both an excellent book of fiction on the topic, as well as a non-fiction survival manual on same.
A self-sufficient person is a confident person. Confident people are very hard to subjugate, absent deadly force, and this hour is not going to go there. Confident people also build confident kids, who are not as easy to bully. Confident kids also do not go the loser route of falling easily to drugs and alcohol.
You want to know the best social welfare program in the world, beside marriage? Boy Scouts, and Girl Scouts! Why do you think that socialists attack those institutions so vigorously? BECAUSE THEY ARE GOOD, like De Tocville said.
Decide what your interests are, find like minded people with whom to associate and collaborate, hone your skills, improve yourself, have a tax deductible business, shun government workers to the extent legally possible, and cling to your guns and bibles.
You are not defeated until such time as you quit, and be VERY sure, that that is EXACTLY what the anti-freedom bigots want, is for you to quit. The whole point of the effort of people without a moral compass, is to demagnetize yours. Let's be absolutely clear here: the reason that some philosophies promote welfare, is to promote dependencies, on them.
Remember that in the free enterprise system, the more enterprising you are, the freer you become. Also remember, that the closer individual responsibility lies to the individual citizen, the happier and more prosperous that entire society will be.
Be vigorous, not violent, vigilant, not vituperative.
In liberty, I'm Charles Heller
THE TEST QUESTION OF FREEDOM
"For those who want expanded government but claim they don't want power, the test question is, "If you were to determine how much of your resources and freedom you would like to give up to government, knowing that I do not have to give up any of mine, how much would you give up?
Those people want the power for you to give up your resources and freedom, for their benefit."
1) You cannot impose freedom, but you can restrain tyranny. It is only through constitutionally limited government that you can keep law from becoming the will of those who have the power to enforce it.
2) You cannot simultaneously advocate for freedom and abdicate responsibility.
3) No one who understands history will ever trust a government.Evil almost always moves just below the speed of notice.
4) More attention in America is paid to automotive choice and cable programming than to freedom. There will never be another revolution in the U.S. as long as there is beer and cable television.The only way to get most people to care about an issue is to kick them in the solar Lexus of their wallet.
5) The founding fathers had another name for "gridlock" - they called it "checks and balances." Gridlock = freedom.
6) The purpose of voting is to endorse a pre-ordained result with the patinaof legitimacy.
7) Eternal vigilance requires the study of great books.
8) You do not want to live under efficient government. Hitler's trains ran on time, but many of them went to the gas chambers.
9) Today we have sickle cell government growth, which has led to a metastasis of government. We have statestatic governance. If the mastersdo not restrain their servant government within constitutional bounds, theywill ever toil at the capstan of collectivism at the behest of bureaucratic buffoons.
10) Ask not, what government can do for the needy. Ask what the individual could do for them if the thieving hand of government were not so deep in his pocket. Charity should be an individual effort, not a group effort.That is collectivism and that depends on theft (taxes).
11) Do not pray for easier times - pray for greater abilities.
12) Force and violence are not equivalent. Force is the amount of energy necessary to produce a desired result. Violence is an excessive use of thatforce. Shooting someone is not necessarily an act of violence if it is done as a last resort of self defense against deadly aggression.
13) If your highest value is peace, you will give anything to get there. One of the first things that is usually sacrificed to get there is freedom. If your highest value is freedom, you are then willing to use force if necessary to preserve it. Peace then becomes a byproduct of the strength of being willing to fight for worthy convictions. This requires the notion of being willing to give war a chance.
14) Pray for peace. Dress for war. You never make progress towards peace by collectivizing security. The only way you ever make progress towards peace is by having the individual citizens of the country (those who are able-bodied) take full and individual responsibility for the security of a nation. And that is called the militia.
15) Stupidity should be painful. Failure to make it so encourages stupidity.
16) Asking permission to use what you own is a stupid waste. (See #15)
17) Government will ALWAYS commit the acts that aggrandize to itself the greatest control, no matter what the economic or social cost. This will ALWAYS be touted as a benefit.
18) Freedom is usually defined by government as a "loophole." You have to become an engaged citizen, not a customer of government services.
19) Bureaucracy is a creature of hermaphroditic stimulation.
20) Freedom isn't free, but it's a lot cheaper than slavery. Freedom is the first true blood sport.
21) Slavery requires one party to be bound by each end of the shackles.
22) Nothing is so pathetic as those who cling to an idea whose time has come - and left.
23) Freedom does not exist on a left - right continuum. If the jackboot of government is on your throat, what matter if it is the left or right boot? You are either marching towards freedom or tyranny, and if you are standing still then you are sliding backwards toward the latter.
24) The more willing and fit you are to use force, the less likely you will have to do so to keep peace, and your rights. The less you are willing to use lawful force,the greater will be your exposure to attack. If you look like food, you will be eaten. Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who don't.
25) Complaining bears with it the responsibility to compliment when thingsgo right. If all you do is complain, you become bitter.
26) Human nature has not changed greatly in thousands of years.
27) The fact that you cannot grasp the infinite mind does not detract from its infinity.
28) We should never let what we don't have stop us from using what we do have.
29) Schools today teach that self esteem is more important than result. There is a word for feeling good about poor performance: delusion. Self esteem is an undefinable quantity. Self respect that comes from accomplishment is priceless.
30) In any compromise with evil, only good stands to lose.
31) Written goals greatly increase the possibility of their attainment.
32) Skill at arms requires discipline and practice. So does almost everything else, so firearms are a great place to start. A gun is used as a tool of situational dominance.
33) Any government that denies its citizens the means of self defense need not be obeyed or financially subsidized.
34) If you believe in the concept that "tyranny could never happen here," remember that Hitler was democratically elected. Government is our tool and it is our job to keep it well protected, sharpened, and in line.
35) Legal and lawful are not the same. Everything Hitler did was legal. After all, he made the laws.
36) There is no law requiring you to talk to any agent of government. All contacts with agents of any authority should be electronically recorded and documented.
37) You should never attribute to conspiracy what you can put off to malfeasance.
38) The installation of idiot proof technologies has only succeeded in the universe's production of more idiots. So far, the universe is winning.
39) The highest and best use of a television is at the 50 yard line on a firing range with .30 caliber.
40) Freedom requires the maintenance of certain tools. Among them are firearms, a multi-tool which is ALWAYS carried, and a computer.
41) Never in the history of man was there a genocide that was not preceededby disarmament of the victims. It CAN happen here.
42) People who are willing to hurt others will ALWAYS acquire the means to do so.
43) Civility fosters a fertile environment for freedom.
44) Econonics is NOT a zero sum game. As with physics, for every action, there is an equal and usually opposite reaction..
45) Freedom is a zero sum game in a one to one relationship with authority. You cannot effectively govern a free people by the same standards you wouldcriminal conduct.
46) People will always do what is in their own best interest. Any rules, regulations, or policies that thwart the individual's interest will always cause unintended consequences. Enlightened self interest is the best reason to do anything.
47) Government's authority is only what its citizens cede to it. It therefore cannot possess any powers that the individual does not have, or he could not have given them to government.
48) The default setting on liberty is to the individual. If said individual is not actively furthering the cause of liberty in some way, he or she, by default, is subtracting from it. Activism is a long, slow ascent into principle, not a rapid parry and thrust into victory. Be not frustrated but rejoice in every discomfort of the anti-freedomists.
49) Every attempt to control human conduct will cause unintended consequences.
50) Freedom is messy. It rarely fits our picture, but that's the great part - It fits the other guy's picture. The other side of the coin of freedom is responsibility. Remember to flip that coin as necessary so as not to mess up the freedom of others.
Souring The Milk Of Illegal Immigration
By Charles Heller
6/15/07
No matter what side of the isle a person's on, they have to acknowledge we have a problem with illegal immigration. Many, many problems are caused or aggravated by it, from an increase in heretofore-eradicated diseases, to the loss of emergency rooms no longer fiscally capable of the strain, to hit and run accidents by illegals.
Illegal immigration is not good for those who come here, either, although it is better for them than the places from which they come. Illegals here, are often not in a position to report crimes against them, nor can they file labor complaints. Their journey across the desert, if they come that way, is fraught with danger both from dishonest people, and nature. In short, it's a bad trip for them, and several hundred die a year trying.No matter what side you're on, we can agree that illegal immigration is a bad thing, but how to solve it?
There is a wide range of opinion, from "deport them all," to "amnesty them all." Let's look at the simple practicalities of it.
"Put Troops on the border," some say. Well, we have a Southern border alone that is 1951 miles long. That would take more troops than we have to properly guard, not to mention pulling them from other areas of the world where they are needed. That does not count the Northern border or watching the coasts.
"Regularize them all," proponents do not understand that many if not most of the people here illegally, are here for money, not citizenship. They either wish to work and send money home, or be a part of the social welfare network of our country. If you can do either without being a citizen, why go through the trouble of being "regularized?"
"Deport them all," is an option that some of the most hard line people in the debate, espouse. Well, let's look at the practicality of that. There are about 1.2 million police officers in the United States, counting all uniform and non-uniform personnel, including FBI, Secret Service, Customs, Border Patrol, and every other local, state, and federal agency. That means that in any one shift, the very most officers on duty, on a good day are about 275,000. You cannot round up 12 to 20 million people with all those officers, let alone the few agents tasked with it.
"Fine or imprison the employers who hire the illegals," say some. Well, once again, we have an enforcement personnel shortage problem there, too. There are too many workplaces and job sites in America to police them all. Furthermore, this has the unfortunate consequence of putting employers in a terrible position. They have no effective way of checking, except the Social Security System, if an SSN is matched to the name of a perspective employee. Enforcing against them, would be a placing the de facto burden of enforcement upon the private sector. That is not a good way to run a "public/private partnership," is it?
"Build the fence," say many. Building a fence is a good idea. Paul Harvey says that, "good fences make for good neighbors." True. A fence is working well in Israel, as well, if we need an example, but it does not address the root cause of why people are coming here, and that is economic incentive. As long as that exists, people will find ways around a fence, through a checkpoint, and beyond their visa time period.
So what to do? Sour the milk!
The way you get people to not do a thing is to ruin their incentive to do it. It is that simple, though not that easy, to accomplish. People come here for the most part to earn money. They then send massive amounts of that money back to their home country. It is said that Mexico's second largest source of income, after oil, is money sent from abroad by individuals working outside their country. But how do you get people to stop doing what is in their interest to do? There are 6 points to sour the milk of illegal immigration. They are in the areas of money transfer, residence, automatic citizenship, health care, education, and sanctuary policy.
First, Congress passes a law that is completely within the ambit of their authority: a financial act that makes it illegal to send money out of the United States if a person is not here legally, or assist anyone not here legally in doing so.How would that work? Choke points.
Money must pass through certain areas that are monitorable in order to leave the country. People either send funds through a currency exchange, a bank, wire transfer, or post office. It is a simple matter to make sure that each agent transferring money outside the U.S., make sure that a person is here legally in order to make that transfer. It is also a simple matter to have Congress include in that legislation, a requirement that a person be here legally in order to have a bank account, and reject the use of the "Matricula Consular" card, as I.D. That is the main facet of "souring the milk" of illegal immigration.
Secondly, we sour the milk by impeding residency. As part of the legislation mentioned above from Congress, we make it illegal to rent or sell property to anyone not here legally, or assist anyone who does. We also include a provision that starting 180 days after the law takes effect, anyone found to have property in the U.S. while not here legally, will have it seized via criminal asset forfeiture. And the funds from proceeds of said sale go to building the fence.
Thirdly, we address the "automatic citizenship" area of concern. The 14th amendment says:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Notice that it says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Mexican citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico. The fact that they have come here illegally does not make them U.S citizens, neither should it make children of those born to illegals, citizens of the U.S. A law that says, "pursuant to amendment 14, all children born to persons legally in the United States, are citizens of the United States," would mitigate the "anchor baby syndrome."
In 1986, a law called EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, required all hospitals which receive Medicare payments, to treat anyone who comes to them regardless of ability to pay or legal status. Change that law to say that in a life-threatening situation, they must treat, but not in non-life threatening situations if a person is not in the U.S. legally. That ends the unfunded mandate for healthcare for illegals, except in life threatening situations.
In the fifth place, Congress should enact a law that only requires the education of children legally in the United States. If local jurisdictions chose to educate the children of illegals they may, but no U.S. tax money may go to that purpose.
Lastly, Congress needs to pass a law that denies any federal money whatsoever to any city, county, political subdivision, or state, that enacts a "sanctuary" policy in terms of its police, fire, EMT, school, or other system of or within government.
What these 6 things do, taken together, is make it hard to transact money, get medical treatment for non life-threatening injuries, get education, or a place to live for people who are not here legally. If you remove the economic incentive, how many will still come illegally?
This still does not address the needs of business that claim that there are jobs "Americans won't do." If that need still exists, it can be handled with an I.D. card, which contains an electronic scan of the temporary worker's fingerprints, retina, and other biometric identifiers, provided that that I.D. is prohibited by law from being used on American Citizens.
A computer database of jobs, run by a non-profit company, can then be used to match jobs with applicants. It should be required by law that anyone not a citizen, working in the U.S., either has a job before they come to the U.S or a bond if they are coming here to run their own business, and the I.D. to swipe just like a credit card at said employer. A person losing his job or moving to another has 14 days to either get a new one or leave the country, or re-apply for more work through the database.
The database could be authorized by Congress 18 - 24 months after the border has been secured, and the secretary of homeland security has certified that less than 3,000,000 illegal aliens are within the borders of the United States.
10 14 06 to The Saturday Morning Breakfast Club
Good morning. It's good to be invited back. This, I believe, is the 4th time I have addressed this august group. I distinctly remember that the first time I attended was in 1981 at the Aztec in, when Bo Gritz spoke.
Back then, at a very tender 23 years of age I asked out loud, "so will someone please tell me what is wrong with a one world government?" My, how things have changed.
It is nice to be invited to a group of people who really are interested in what you have to say. It rather places a responsibility on the speaker, though, to say something intelligent. Seeing as how I usually don't start until 10 AM at sounding intelligent, that may be a tall order, but I have no intention to embarrass Carl Tretshock for inviting me. But sometimes it could be fun.
Today my topic is how to do activism without getting hauled off.Having been hauled off a couple times, I suggest that not doing so is a better course of action, although your opinion may vary. I wish to be remembered outside the hall of martyrs, as it were.
For anyone who does not know, I host the Swap Shop Radio Show Sundays on AM 690 in Tucson, AM 930 in Douglas, AM 1240 in Globe, from 10 AM to noon, where you can call in live and buy, sell or trade anything you want that is lawful and moral. It is the almost unregulated free market, governed only by common courtesy and common sense. (Although sense is becoming somewhat less common.)
From noon to one PM, Liberty Watch is about making sure government remains the servant, not the master. At one PM is America Armed & Free, the only firearms related program originating in the Southwest. I say firearms related, because if it has a muzzle, a nozzle, or a blade, it gets talked about sooner of later.That part of the show is also on KFNX in Phoenix, AM 1100.
I also teach the Arizona concealed weapons course, for those of you interested in turning your God granted, constitutionally guaranteed right, into a privilege, on pain of lack of privacy, and while paying government to do so.
I am one of the 4 founders of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, the group which this year succeeded in getting Castle Doctrine passed and signed into law, put the burden of proof in self defense cases back on the state where it belonged, and got the law changed to specify in writing that governments that put up "no guns here" signs install secure lockers for storage of same.It is that which I am going to cover first in terms of success, however I want to cover some basics about activism.
I'd like some audience participation. Would some of you please just call out some of the abuses of government or authority?
OK thanks, avast ye. (OK, so I overdosed on Hornblower.)
Notice that there is no lack of things about which to be concerned. These are things I try to address on Liberty Watch, but there are more abuses of both power and principle than any one or any ten radio shows can cover.Notice that an abuse of principle is just as serious as one of power, parenthetically.
First of all, no matter how much we want to combat all such abuses, we can't. Doing so would require a full time activist. I'm as close as you usually get to such an animal, and I don't have time to activate against all evils.
So I'm going to suggest you select your activism targets very carefully on things you are going to invest the capital of your time.Figure out what it is you are most passionate about, and handle those things as your highest priority.
Let me give you a personal example: the largest racketeer influenced corrupt organization operating in the US today is.. (Cup hand to ear.) That's right, IRS.The tax honesty movement has gained some momentum lately, and I'd love to do more with it. But right now there are other fights that are more pressing, so I do not get involved much with it other than to stay informed, because that is not the hill I have picked for my battle. I encourage each of you to pick your own hill, based on what Thomas Jefferson once suggested, Q, "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."
Think for a moment, if you would, what the most serious abuse is of freedom in your domain, and work on it. You don't have to work on only one thing, but decide what one thing is your highest priority, and do that first, and most.
The nature of my work makes me somewhat multi disciplinary in my approach to the fight against abuses of power, but most of you who know me know what my first passion is in those abuses.[Explain Squirt gun, use of inert objects to make point.]
To that end, I come to my second point, after deciding what activism is most important to you: study it. Become a minor expert in your topic. Read books, articles, and web sites which specialize in that area. Join like minded groups. Get to the point where if you are in a debate or have a chance to speak about your topic, that you can confidently quote sources and resources without having to search all over for them. Being confident in your topic carries a lot of weight in convincing people of the efficacy of your point.
There is a saying in lawyering, "if you have the facts, pound them. If you don't have the facts, pound the table." Well, I'm here to tell you that you don't need to pound the table if you have the facts!
Third, associate with others that are of like mind, but understand that even like minded people will have different ideas on how to do a thing. Don't make it so that everything has to be exactly your way, or you will be a lonely activist.
Let me give you a personal example: the core group of the AzCDL consists of 4 guys, Dave Kopp who is the president, John Wentling who is the Vice-President, Fred Dahnke who is the treasurer, and me, who is the secretary. Four more diverse, deep thinking people you will not find! Dave is quiet, very soft spoken, quietly passionate, and very effective. He has been a activist for years, and is a completely volunteer lobbyist for our group. He is tireless.
Dave does not get into arguments, he quietly persuades.
John Wentling is a former Nuw Yawk cop who frequently stats a sentence with "listen you blank blanker." A little less subtle than Dave.
Fred Dahnke, our treasurer, is a quiet, retired government worker, accountant and paperwork kind of guy, who is as committed to proficiency with a sidearm as any civilian out there. He goes to Front Sight four times a year and takes all kinds of classes to keep up his skills. He has no use for rifles because his eyesight does not allow for their use. Fred has what I call a "50 yeard halo" around him, and woe betide any threat to his person at that distance.
Now, we come to your speaker.I'm not so soft spoken as Dave, given to an occasional passionate outburst, although articulately so, I hope, and a good bit more gregarious than most of the other three. My point is that we are each effective at what we do.It does not matter that we come from diverse backgrounds an experiences. It matters that we make the progressive realization of our goals, more important than who gets credit for their achievement.
Fourth, decide how far you are willing to go with your activism. Let us say that you have picked out the target of your activism, and you are informed about the laws surrounding it and the rules that government is supposed to be following. Decide in advance how far you are willing to go with an individual gesture of activism. Some of you know that in April of 03 (waaaay back in aught threee) I had a little face to face meeting in Reid Park with the Tucson Police Department about openly carrying a gun in said park. As a result of that meeting, they now have a new policy that they will NOT arrest anyone found carrying a gun openly in the park, as was their previous policy. Furthermore, there is now a 6 minute in service training film that all TPD officers must watch on dealing with lawfully armed persons in the parks, which came out of Sgt. Jim Stoutmeyer's efforts.
The reason he was able to do that is because I took my activism with him to the limit of civility, but not beyond it. I gave him room to obey the law without threatening his person or challenging his authority.I simply questioned his application of the law, and pointed out nicely the consequences of violating my civil rights under color of law. Suddely the topic of the day changed from the silly little Glock 27 on my left side, to, "Sgt Stoutmeyer, I can't protect your certification to be a peace officer if you don't obey the law." Suddenly the basis of the conversation was irrevocably shifted.
Fifth, we come to watching your words. Everyone has a territory, and people can get pretty territorial in their perceived "domain." Let's use my example in the park with TPD. Here we have a situation where I am facing 4 police officers while I am openly carrying a sidearm. They are asserting that I may not do so. I am politely explaining to them that I am certified to teach the law they are attempting to enforce, and they are not doing so lawfully. No tension there, right?????
I am here to tell you that as a CCW instructor, more people get in trouble for what they SAY, than what they DO. You know the Miranda warning? What does it say? Anything you say, . (fill it in for me here guys.)
Know what you are going to say before you meet the nice public servant or the petty tyrant, as the case may be. You goal should be to inform them of the proper procedure or conduct, not, to be right. If you goal is to be right, go join a debate society. Our rights and precious freedom is too important to be sacrificed on the alter of our egos. Fold up your ego and put it in your holster underneath your sidearm, please.
In dealing with government agents and people in control of premises or areas we frequent, being civil goes a long way. I am NOT talking here about rendering lip service to the derriere of petty bureaucrats! You can be plenty harsh without being either coarse or truculent. People today are not as used to civilty as they once were, and a polite, "with all due respect, that is not what the law says, sir," will get you a lot further than crude anatomical references, like, "no it's NOT, you elbow!"
Sixth, If you are going to commit an act of civil obedience (after all, if they are not following the law, they are the ones committing the civil disobeniance) get the circumstance right before you do it. Record the event on video, or at least audio. Have witnesses. If possible, have a copy of the law with you that shows that what you are doing is what is within the law. Be smart, have a copy with you that you can afford to part with. Keep an extra copy of that law in your Palm or PDA.
Now I want no snickering out there among those of you who know that 8 years ago I was anti-technology. We all have to grow up sometime. Besides, how else am I to maintain geek- hood if I don't surround myself with gadgets?
Speaking of gadgets, I come to my seventh and last point of activism: have the tools of activism handy. That means carry a digital camera to your activism, and have a way of recording any encounter with governmental employees or law enforcement officials.And don't drive away from your activism with expired plates - you don't want to give them a handle on you!
So to recap, first, decide what abuses of power or principle are most important to you. Next, get informed about them.Third, associate with those of like mind. Fourth, decide how far you are willing to go. Fifth, watch your words. Sixth, set the circumstances for your activism so that the results fall to your favor. An seventh, carry the tools of successful activism. Oh and an adden- dum, try not to get into pitched battles with your own side. The only results you get out of inter- necine warring is a lot of damaged Nissans.
The reason that AzCDL (Arizona Citizens Defense League) won the organization of the year award from the Second Amendment Foundation at the Gun Rights Policy Conference this year in Charlotte, is because we have figured out how to influence the legislature and get the gov to sign our bills. I would like each of you here to consider joining AzCDLImagine what we could do if we sent out an alert and 1000 people picked up the phone and called their legislator. That could shake the foundations of the statist infrastructure, no? If the people lead then the leaders will follow. I have applications here so that you can join us among the leaders. ____________________________________________________________________________
Who Is The Good Man In A Storm?
4/06 by Charles Heller
Tom Clancy's protagonist, Jack Ryan, describes a person to be "good man in a storm." What does this mean?
The "good man in a storm," does not lose his bearings or his balance in the rough seas of crisis. He maintains both his attitude and his judgment in a crisis. How is this done?
First and foremost, it takes a person focused on one thing: the principle of correct action to a correct conclusion, or the consequences of a bad conclusion despite right action. That is not a simple statement. A person focused on doing the right thing in a crisis knows inherently that sticking to moral action may not always yield the best of personal circumstance. He is willing to disregard much personal risk in order that the right outcome be obtained. This requires moral courage that is not developed over night.
The foundation of right moral action is usually a set of learning experiences directed by the good moral compass of a person's role models in life. Sometimes books can be substituted for bad role models, but that method takes a hell of a lot more imagination than simply following a good example. It can also sometimes be stimulated by negative example, but that is a much harder struggle.
In a practical sense, it usually comes down to small correct steps. Sometimes, really small correct steps. It is removing the garbage in the can to the dumpster when it is full rather than trying to compact the trash one more time. It is doing the basket of laundry that your spouse is too tired to do, even though it is not "your job."
The good man in a storm, or GMIAS for short, is not bothered by the fact that a thing that needs to be done is not convenient. He simply does it. Next.
Doing the right thing immediately is rather like re-tying your shoe when the lace has come lose, but is not yet untied. Why bother to slow down and re-tie it if it is not untied yet? Because when it does, the risk of tripping on it is greater than the time spent to re-tie it.
GMIAS is not consumed with anxiety over who will get the credit for a job well done. He is steadfast on the goal that the job get done, and is not terribly concerned with who gets the credit. Does that mean that he is selfless? Certainly not. He understands that in order for the world to work, he must do the things that are necessary to be accomplished, absent any acknowledgement for their accomplishment.
This is not honesty for the sake of honesty, but acknowledgement of the principle that what goes around, comes around. Nothing is more painful to the skull than the boomerang of bad action. Conversely, it is not always apparent that right action will bring with it a benefit. The good man in a storm is one who does the right thing anyway.
GMIAS understands that there are moral pillars of the community, and that by his action he may either add to their strength or to their decay. Ultimately, he realizes that the only way to live in a healthy and safe community is to act in ways that support it, outside of a desire
for personal gain. This is NOT altruism; it is the realization that a good society starts with good actions. In some respects, it is a product of a long term view of enlightened self interest.
The good man in a storm does not treat people with respect in order that he be treated the same way. He simply realizes that if he does treat people with respect, that that will be the natural result. Natural result may indeed be a good way of looking at the good man in a storm. He is trying to stay on the right side of natural law. Another way of looking at it is to say that he knows water does not flow uphill, so he builds his stream collection device down stream. Though he may be hailed as a genius later for doing so, the real reason for building it that way is a thorough understanding of gravity. The laws of sewing and reaping do not change with those who use them. Nature is no respector of persons.
GMIAS understands the principle of "the bubble." The bubble is the indicator in a level that shows the angle of pitch or roll away from center. He does not let external circumstance disturb his accurate view of a true level. That requires a certain objectivity and divorcement from the temporary tirade of emotion. It also requires "tri-focality."
"Tri-focality" is the ability to see what is going on right in front of you. Pilots call it "situational awareness." But it is also the ability not to get so focused on what's going on in front of you that you run into it. Pilots call that "target fixation." Tri-focality is the ability to see what is right in front and around you, what is ahead in the distance, and what the result is of that course. It is the culmination of observation and vision. It is the proper tactical application of the strategy of right action.
The good man in a storm realizes that awareness alone is not sufficient to win the day. That requires not only awareness, but the willingness to carry the right tools of proper action and to act.
Sometimes the good of a whole country is secured by a single pocket knife. The good man in a storm does not worship the knife, or any other tool, he simply accepts the carry of it as necessary to the greater good of a free society.The same is true of any other tool of freedom, whether it shoots, cuts, or turns the lock nut of liberty. (The lock nut of liberty tends to restrain the wing nuts of statism.)
A fire extinguisher makes a lousy room decoration, but it may preserve that room or the whole house by having it there when needed. The good man in a storm somehow figures out the compromise between the ugly room decoration and the necessity of fire fighting equipment. It sometimes is that simple. It is an intersection between the near term awareness and the strategic vision of the future.
In order to maintain tri-focality, the good man in a storm must not only stay current on technology and history, but also understand how the modern world and local situation correspond to it. This requires the constant and ongoing study of great books, as well as the willingness to be found to be wrong and correct it.
GMIAS is not afraid of the use of force, nor is he enthused about doing so.He never makes the need for force into an opportunity to use it. He understands that force and violence are not the same thing at all, and that force only becomes violence when it is excessive. Force is the amount of energy needed to produce a result, nothing more. Violence is force that exceeds the amount necessary to produce the correct result. The good man in a storm does not exceed that limit, so does not fear the use of necessary force, either with people or things.
Neither is the good man in a storm afraid to take charge where leadership is the indicated function. This is done to move forward the needed accomplishment, rather than aggrandize the self. GMIAS understands that when something needs to be done to save life, guard against injury, or protect property, he just does what is necessary and sorts out the details later. Although some people see this as brash, the GMIAS does what is needed anyway, and without the so-called "stove pipe" of regulation. He simply acts.
GMIAS realizes that sometimes his actions are perceived as a threat to the entrenched power of appointed or elected "good men before the storm," and is not threatened or deterred by them. He sees them as neutral to the action necessary to be done in a crisis, especially if the "good men before the storm," are not present. He acts. He does nothing to deliberately insight the ire of such persons, other than the natural consequence of right action offending wrong persons. He takes no delight in the offense of wrong persons, merely pleasure in the right result.
This is the natural product of correct action, the feeling of accomplishment of a job well done, never the joy of "being right." He would view "being right" as to the detrement of doing right, which is anathema to GMIAS.
The good man in a storm is rarely appreciated before a storm, and frequently not afterward, either. That is his lot, and he accepts it without complaint.
The good man in a storm is just as easily a woman or a man. Right action requires no particular human plumbing. Neither is this moniker dependent upon one's function or profession, although certainly certain personality types are more drawn to professions where GMIAS qualities are called upon. Look around. The most likely GMIAS is the one with the multi tool on their belt, but there are stealth good men and women in a storm among us. Go be one of them.
H. U. E. O. & "Swivel On A Pivot"
H.U.E.O. Means "Heads up, eyes open."
It is a philosophy as well as a procedure. It means that you are aware of both your ambient environment and the consequences of it. It means that you are thinking ahead for what the signs in that environment indicate for the future, as well the present.
You cannot be free if you do not know where you are going or what lies ahead of you on that path. H.U.E.O.
Condition White: The mental state of liquid paper. Unaware of surroundings.
If attacked while in this condition, or encounter some natural disaster, it is difficult to shift mental gears fast enough to overcome the situation. You are likely to get hurt if you walk around outdoors in this state. If you are too busy to look where you are going, you are too busy.
Condition Yellow: A relaxed state of alertness undergirded with the knowledge that there are people and things in life that can hurt you. You are non-paranoiacally aware of them and havea plan in mind to deal with the things that might come up. You have a plan.
You know what to do in the event of emergencies or danger. You have the proper tools of rescue at your disposal. You have the proper notifications in place with your family and friends for your situation. The concept of having a spare part for that which might break is not foreign to you.
Condition Orange: You have detected something wrong, out of place, or dangerous. You smell natural gas in your home, someone begins to change lanes through you, your car or home alarm system goes off. A specific threat or danger exists. Because you were in yellowwhen it happened, you either already knew what you would do if this occurred or formulated a quick plan.
Condition Red: You are in flight or fight. You are either removing yourself and family from danger or in a life or death struggle to defend same.
The H.U.E.O. mindset allows you to be ahead of the activity in your life, rather than behind the curve of it. Instead of the activity around you being a trailing indicator of reality, it is a leading indicator. You can then be at cause of what happens to you, rather than at effect.
One method of maintaining the H.U.E.O. mindset to stay in condition yellow is what I call, "swivel on a pivot." It means that your consciousness can look at any angle to perceive a threat, danger, or important fact about your environment. It includes some study of the evil of which man is capable, a sharp eye to what is going on, and the willingness to look around corners and have a bright flashlight for the occasional dark corner, both physically and metaphysically.
"Swivel on a pivot," means that you can and do turn to face any threat, physical danger, and internal or external crisis with the flexibility of a view toward a solution. That view may be either standard or asymmetric, but it looks toward solution and survival. The important point is that it always looks.
If Dr. Seuss Talked To Your Minister
If your minister says it's sinister cause y'all go out and shoot
Cause about the Bill Of Rights he doesn't give a hoot,
Then get savvy bout your history and you'll soon become astute
On the lessons that it teaches about freedom, faith and truth
If he says that they are evil and you shouldn't own a gun
And he thinks they are for killing - never safety, food or fun,
Then ask how St. Gabriel of Posenti saved a town when in the lurch,
by a pistol demonstration with the blessing of the church!
If he says that they're too easy for children to obtain
Ask why 40 years ago most schools contained a range
And rifle teammate members gladly brought them on the bus
And never once an incident for anyone to fuss
If your minister says it's sinister 'cause your family you'll defend,
And he does not understand why your firearm is your friend,
"Cause he thinks the cops must save you if 911 you dial,
Just ask him if a court has ever said such at trial?
The state's not liable says the court to grant for you relief by tort
From evildoers' rape and pillage, if cops fail to save our village.
If all that's necessary for evil's reign, is from works of good we abstain,
Then by who's hand will evil be rooted, if not by good they are shooted?
So ask your reverend - teacher - friend, who it is that will defend
"gainst murder, robbery, plunder, rape, when laws say guns must be in safes?
And what if - God in Heaven forbid - of another Hitler we must be rid?
With blessing for tyrantacide, by what method will good abide?
If not by rifle, pistol, bludgeon, knife, by what means will we protect life?
=================================================
THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF FORCE IN SELF DEFENSE
by Charles Heller
In order for you to be able to use force to defend yourself under Arizona law, the threat against you must have both of two conditions:
1) The threat against you must be immediate.
You CANNOT use force against a future threat. If someone says to you, "I'm going to go home, get my .45, load it with hollow points, then come back and shoot you in the second shirt button", you CANNOT use force on this person. It is a future threat.
2) The treat against you must be an UNLAWFUL act.
The act that someone commits must be a crime for you to be able to use force against them.
A burglar has no "right" to self defense during the burglary. The standard of the use of this force in self defense is what a reasonable person would believe is immediately necessary under the circumstances.
The use of physical force is NEVER justified by verbal provocation alone, or to resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or someone acting at the direction of a peace officer, unless that force used to make the arrest exceeds the amount of force allowed by law. Resisting arrest is a felony.
In order to maintain the viability of self defense in any prosecution, the user of the force must clearly communicate to the other combatant that they have no desire to engage in a fight, and to stop using force if the assailant withdraws or clearly communicates their desire to withdraw.
Example: You're on a Saturday husband drag through the local busy mall. While distracted by the widow display at Fredrick's, a local baggy pants home boy, bumps into you, then becomes irate. As he approaches you in a hostile manner, YOU must deescalate the conflict. Even though he bumped into you, it is wise to apologize and carefully withdraw from the conflict. If you engage in any fighting words, or you assume a "fighting stance", the witnesses will report "an altercation". This will not go well for you when the police arrive. If on the other hand, you carefully back away from the assailant with your hands in front of you, palms out so that you can shove him away if necessary, you preserve your physical posture and your legal defense as well. The witnesses will now report an "attacker" and a "defender".
Tell him that you are sorry, and that you want no part of him, and to leave you alone. If he persists, order him away in a increasingly louder tone. If he gets within striking distance, tell him you'll use force to defend yourself. If you have a defensive tool such as pepper mace or an ASP baton, now is a good time to get it ready. Remember that unless he has a weapon, deadly force is neither called for nor justified.
If you are a guy, don't use profanity. It sounds angry. If you are a woman, get as blue as you can. It shocks a bad guy because it is less expected from women and it tends to throw a bad guy off guard.
One more thing - if you carry any weapon and you allow an altercation to escalate without trying to deescalate, the fact that you brought the weapon is evidence against you as to the premeditation to use force. Remember that courts have little to do with the truth. They have to do with what you can make people believe.
As an investigative journalist, I have gone along with the US Border Patrol on foot and vehicle, in Douglas, Nogales, Tucson, and Arivaca, and have been in the tunnels under Nogales. I have also gone under my own aegis by vehicle and on foot.
The courageous foot soldiers of our Border Patrol are held in political stalemate by bureaucratic rules. They are overrun with illegals in a revolving door scheme of "catch and release," as pointed out in Michelle Malkin's book, "Invasion, How America Still Welcomes Terrorists To Our Shores."
As to violence, there is not one documented case along our border of any lawful group causing a death or injury to an illegal. There are many cases of illegal entrants causing injury and worse. May I call your attention to the fact that a great American, US Park Ranger Chris Egele, was recently murdered by such a trespasser on our soil?
One of the most notorious serial killers, Rafael Resendiz, an illegal alien, murdered 7 US citizens AFTER being in and out of INS custody, due to bureaucratic malfeasance. He had already killed 5, and FBI knew who he was, asked that a hold be placed on him, and managers at INS failed to do it. That is the level of "service" offered by our government. It is but one of a litany of such cases, according to Michelle Malikin when I interviewed her on my radio program.
Among those whose silence is deafening on this issue are environ-mentalists. The damage caused to native plants and species is horrific. The damage to livestock from ingesting garbage left by illegals along known egress routes is appalling.
Chris Simcox's group consists largely of retired military and law enforcement officers. Roger Barnett, a rancher who has made armed arrests of illegal aliens, is criticized by those who place emotion over fact. Most don't realize that he's a retired sheriff's deputy. If you trusted these people to serve the country when they received a government paycheck, why not now?
Respectfully, I remind you that in our constitutional republic, the people are the government. It is our job to keep the leadership from falling into folly, not the reverse. We the people must show leadership and set the example for proper conduct of officials.
Simcox's group is NOT taking the law into their own hands. They are taking it upon themselves to deliver the illegals to the hands of the law. That is NOT "vigilantism." It is the highest spirit of volunteerism.
As to citizen arrests of illegal immigrants. I call your attention to Arizona Title 13, Chapter 3884: A private person may make an arrest :
1. When the person in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
Would that Barnett or Simcox's group would have peaceably arrested Egel's killer before the fact, or a Rafael Ramirez BEFORE their vile acts of predation upon a peaceful people. Simcox and Barnett should be seen as protectors, not transgressors, as some have painted them.
The Tenth Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." "The people," like Simcox standing in the gap created by government's malfeasance. Long may they stand.
I had an "encounter" with the Pima County Sheriff's Dept. tonight that may prove instructive. I did not remain completely silent, breaking my own rule, and to my detriment. Read on, especially one of the questions asked by TPD, who backed up the stop, as did 3 other sheriff's deputies.
Joann and I were on the way home, her Toyota following my van. I had just spent 5 hours being stranded in front of the Coronado Post Office on Rosemont & replacing a starter, missing an important business meeting. At 2225 an S.O. vehicle slipped between Joann's Toyota and mine and pulled me over, just West of Alvernon on Ajo. Deputy Pastian (#1158) asked for my license, registration, and insurance, which I provided. He explained that I had no license plate bulbs, a broken taillight, and expired registration. (All true.)
He noticed that I was wearing a white tyvek set of coveralls ($5 at Harbour Freight - a good idea for a trunk item in case your car breaks down and you have to lay on the ground and fix it without ruining your good clothes) and asked what I had been doing tonight. I said that I had spent the last 3 hours under the car replacing the starter. He asked if I had been drinking. I responded that I practice an alcohol free lifestyle, and did not even like aspirin.
He then asked what the contents of the rear of the van were under the sheet. I responded that I reserved all my rights, including that of the privacy of my goods. He then asked "is there anything you want to tell me about what's in your van - anything I should know about?" I again reaffirmed my desire for privacy, informing him that I didso with the utmost respect for him and his department, and that I had no ill will.
He went away for a few minutes, then came back and asked me "if there is anything in here that could stick me shoot me, or blow me up?" I told him that there was nothing dangerous to him within my immediate reach or control in the vehicle, but that it didn't matter if there was, as I had no harmful intent against him. He asked again and I gave him the same answer. He told me that it would be a few more minutes.
Unbeknownst to me, Joann had circled back around the block and parked behind the arriving backup units. The first one she encountered was an affable TPD officer, to whom she volunteered that she was my wife, in case they wondered what she was doing there. When he asked her for I.D. she declined, saying that her I.D. was in the fanny pack on the seat next to her with her gun and CCW permit, and she had no intention of touching it, but he was welcome to take it and take her I.D. from it. (Smart
girl, wonder who's class she learned that in?) To her suprise he stated that he thought honest people's posession of guns was a good idea, especially responsible ones like her, and it was O.K. with him if she picked it up, just please take out the wallet and leave the pack on the seat. She complied, then said, "don't you think all the other officers would be more comfortable if I stood away from the car?" He quickly agreed (gee, why didn't THEY think of that?) and she got within 25 feet of where I was now standing. (She did this to be a better witness, not comfort the cops.... Experience has taught us to stick together on these things...)
Deputy Pastian had by then asked me to exit the vehicle and lean on the fence in front of Bishop Auto Sales. I took my planner, put the keys (2 sets) ON THE DASH BOARD, exited and LOCKED the vehicle, complying by sitting on the fence. Deputy Pastian then explained that he was awaiting the arrival of the drug dog. I informed him that the Supreme Court had set 20 minutes as a reasonable limit. He told me, "that never happened". I offered to get him the cite, and he repeated, "that never happened." (Somebody PLEASE give me the place where I can get a copy to give this guy.)
Joann was merrily chatting away with the "sworn" congregation, as the drugcopmutt investigated my (locked) van, twice around, escorting a large, in shape deputy (condition one .45 in SAS drop rig, set far too low to be effective. Had to be S.O.) They asked her why I was "acting weird, driving poorly, and wearing a "chemical suit"? She told them that they'd act wierd too after 3 hours under the van, and if I drove poorly it was due to tiredness. Also, that wasn't a "chemical suit" but a coverall she insisted I wear to protect my cloths. They wanted to know why I didn't reveal what the contents were, and what were the contents? She mentioned my full set of tools and advertising catalogs and samples, and explained that we believed in preparedness as I had learned in Scouts. They asked her if I had a gun in the van and she said it was possible, but that I probably didn't have it on. At that point Deputy Pastian approached me and asked if I was armed, and to see my CCW permit. I complied, stating that "seeing as how ARS 13-3112 requires it, I would comply. (And did. I thought about refusing, as I was not armed, but what would that achieve?
Now here's the kicker: They asked, "are you a CONSTITUTIONALIST?" her answer: "Why yes, ever since 8th grade when I learned about our wonderful founding document. If you mean by that "am I a member of a militia" then no, I'm a Republican, and I VOTE!" They then asked if I had any "chemicals" in the van, and she said, "not unless you consider a fire extinguisher chemicals." (TPD laughed, S.O. scowled.)
Deputy Pastian left me with a ticket for expired plates and no bulb after 35 minutes. He was clearly not pleased that I had challenged his "authority" to know the contents of my vehicle. I wish Joann had not said anything about my stuff, but she is a "peacemaker" with an aversion to seeing me lead off in irons at the roadside again. Guess this is the collision at the intersection of feminine and principle, but I was happier to have her company (and testimony, if it came to it) than the exact "right" answer.
Lessons:
1) Them thar ocifers of the law have got a lot of "profiles" for people to fit.
2) My "police officers deserve better pay sticker did me no good, and has now been
disproved anyway. I'll think about it, but it's probably history.
3) Keep your vehicle in TOP shape to deny probable cause for a stop.
4) I should have refused to converse from the very start.
5) KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SAY BEFORE HAND EVERY TIME!
6) Resistance is NOT futile! I suspect the deputy may have tried to let deputy dawg into my van for a sniff if it was not locked.
7) Boy would it have been easy to plant evidence if I hadn't locked it!
8) To the fullest extent possible prep your wife with the "right" answers. (She won't decline to converse so as not to "make them more suspicious" I wish I could find some way to teach her about admissions against interest.... Good suggestion are welcome, if they don't end in "yes, dear".)
All laws made by congress shall expire 12 years from their enactment date. Laws enacted by congress before 1940 shall expire 5 years from the enactment of this amendment. Laws made between 1940 and the enactment date of this amendment shall expire 10 years from the enactment date of this amendment.
Congress shall not delegate the authority to any agency, department, or office of the government to make law or administrative rules that bear as a consequence a penalty of more than $100, or any term of imprisonment. All such rules in existence at the time this amendment is enacted shall expire three years after its enactment date.
No law passed by Congress shall include more than one subject in the most narrow d efinition. No omnibus or multiple topic legislation shall issue from Congress except the federal budget, which shall contain money disbursements only, with no riders.
The number of votes needed to pass a bill from either house is 2/3 of the total members of each respective body.
All laws of The United States shall be interpreted in the strictest definition of their meaning in plain language, and shall remain law notwithstanding any court decision, except by finding of unconstitutionality, in which case the whole of that law is voided.
__________________________________
Amendment 29
Only those persons born in the United States to citizens of the United States, are citizens.
_______________________________
Amendment 30
The 16th amendment is hereby repealed.
Congress shall have the power to tax the states no more than 1% of the money exchanged in the business transactions within each state, but not between individuals.
No other taxes of any kind except a maximum 5% excise tax, or user fee, shall be levied, assessed, or collected.
No tax, levy, or excise fee shall be collected upon constitutionally enumerated rights, in all articles.
Congress shall spend no more than 98-1/2 % of the actual receipts of the taxes on the annual budget, except in time of declared war or declared national emergency by 2/3 of both houses.
The 1-1/2 % surplus shall be used to pay the debt of the United States. When paid, the surplus shall be kept in perpetuity for contingencies and emergencies as Congress shall deem appropriate by a 2/3 majority.
The standard of the United States shall be gold, and this shall be printed or stamped on all currency.
________________________________________
Amendment 31
The 17th amendment is hereby repealed. Senators will be elected by the legislative bodies of the respective states.
_________________________________________________
Amendment 32
No forefeiture, seizure, or holding of assets shall commence under civil or criminal law without first due process of law before a jury of one's piers, and upon felony conviction.
TPD Changes "Guns In Parks Policy" Due to Activist's Efforts
4 29 03
Today I had an encounter with 6 of TPD's finest. Long story, short point. I held my
ground and won.
This morning at Reid Park in Tucson at the band shell I attended a support the
troops rally, representing KJLL Radio and Liberty Watch. As a free person, I open carried my Glock 27 in a black leather strong side thumb break with offside mag pouch. I wore a KJLL AM 1330 t-shirt and BDU slacks.
About half way through I was at the front in the shade next to the news director
Nicole Cox when TPD Sgt. Stoutmeyer walked up. He was eyeing the crowd very
pointedly. He was very alert and observant. I struck up a conversation with him
for about 10 minutes as he scanned the crowd, then walked off. My open carried
magazine was within 20" of him.
At about 11:20 I visited the latrine and on the way back was politely hailed by 2
TPD officers, one a fellow named Brown. They told me I couldn't be in the park with a
gun. I thanked them for being observant, gave them a business card (they had not
asked for I.D. but I wanted to be open with them.)
I told them that respectfully, ARS 13-3108 prevented them from regulating that
when I had a CCW permit, and showed them the permit. Brown asked me if that was
an ASP in my front belt line. When I replied in the affirmative, he asked to see it, and I
handed it to him. He commented how light it was, then hung onto it. (Smart cop. The
baton is far more of a threat to him at our range than the gun.) They never took the
gun or assumed an offensive posture with me. They asked nicely if I'd wait for their
Sergeant, and I said, "Sgt, Stoutmeyer? I just talked to him."
Stoutmeyer came over looked at me, and said, "you?" I stood next to you
for 10 minutes and saw no gun. I replied, "yeah, I talked to you in part so you could
discuss the gun if you were going to. I was really admiring your alertness. I'm left
handed, so that's probably why you missed it standing to my right. As a CCW
instructor, I teach people to not miss the obvioust."(He winced.)
He told me that the gun was legal only if concealed, according to the Tucson
ordinance. I told him that the ordninance was silent on concealment, and that if he
tried to enforce what was not the law in a policemen's uniform, that it was depravation
of civil rights under color of law.
"Sgt. Stoutmeyer, what is the TPD policy on officers who exceed their authority?"
"There are sanctions for that."
"Sgt., I can't protect you if you don't obey the law. I am trying to shield you from
harm here, and I am not giving you a hard time. If you are not enforcing the law you
swore to uphold, what good are laws? 18 USC 241 is a felony sir"
"Good point. I'll call the legal advisor."
"OK. I'll be under that tree over there if you want to talk, except when I'm on stage. Brown said, "what do I do with this? (My ASP baton.) I stepped forward and took it as Stoutmeyer said, "it's his."
15 minutes later, Stoutmeyer beckoned me to the tree. "Legal advisor says it
must be concealed. If you carry openly then the next guy without a permit will see
it and think he can do it without a permit. I have to ask you, since you are tape recording
this, to either cover it, put it in your car, or my lieutenant says I have to cite you."
"OK Sgt. This is not the hill I want to make my stand on and disrupt the activities.
I'll untuck my shirt so as not to back you into a corner, but we are not through. Please showme the written law that you are enforcing. I am not mad at you personally, but the law is silent on this and you are exceeding your authority."
"I thought you'd say that so the legal advisor is on her way here with it in writing."
"OK. When it gets here, we'll take the next step. This is not my forum, but we
are not finished."
20 minutes later, he becons me over. "OK, here is the law." (Hands me a xerox.)
Tucson City Code, S 21-(3) Relating to recreation. No person in a park shall:
(2) Hunt, trap, or pursue wildlife at any time: use carry or posess firearms of any description without possession of a concealed weapons permit issued persuant to ARS 13-2112.....
"Hey, it says nothing here about concealed. You have a point."
"Yes Sergeant. And if you tell me it has to be concealed, and it doesn't, you have
exceeded your authority under color of law. Now the city council may have intended that
it be concealed, and if they write the ordinance that way I'll do it. But preemption doesn't
give them the authority to regulate that, and if you try to enforce it, what sanctions might
you suffer? I'm trying to protect you, sir"
"Ill call the legal advisor."
(At this point my Title 18 warning card is still rubber banded to the tape recorder.)
12:50 PM, under shade tree east of band shell, witnesses Nicole Cox, Mike
Fascetta, John Campbell, Pat Johnston:
"Mr. Heller you are right. The law doesn't say concealed. I apologize."
"Seeing as how you were just doing what they told you, no need for an apology.
I am, for the record, tucking my shirt in."
"Thank you for your attitude of not being combative with us."
"Thank you for understanding that government is the servant, not the master.
(At this point state rep Randy Graf walks up.) You know, if the North and South had treated
each other with the same mutual respect as we did today, there might not have been a
war between the states. I just watched "Gettysberg" last night. I have the director on my
show tomorrow."
"Will this be on the radio?
"Oh I promise you the oxygen of publicity, Sgt. Stoutmeyer.
As an addendum to this story, Sgt. Stoutmeyer called me the next day and said that there was now a 6 minute "in service" training film that he had created that all TPD sworn officers must eventually watch, about dealing with people lawfully armed in the Tucson Parks.
As John Denver once sang, "what can one man do?" Go out and peacable activate!
