I have been writing in various blogs about tyranny and nullification. But today, I must yeild the floor to a writer more excellent than I and his review of a book by two writers more excellent than I.
Who allowed the Left to rename Criminal Profiling as Racial Profiling? Replacing the word criminal with racial obviously blurs the intent of the profile and gives the impression that policing agencies are only intending to harass certain racial groups rather than arrest criminals.
A year or two ago, the Left attempted to rename suicide bombers, but the public just didn’t swallow it. The moniker remains. Yet any attempt to apprehend those engaged in illegal activity by developing an easy-to-understand description has become racial profiling because a racial designation is sometimes used.
Policemen are aware that certain actions while driving will indicate that the driver may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. They are “profiled” and stopped. After a cursory conversation with the driver and possibly a field sobriety test the officer either lets them continue or arrests them for DUI. Profiling just possibly saved the life of someone else on the road. No one complains.
Arizona is being accused of racism because they are utilizing racial profiling. These accusations are supposed to make us cringe in horror at Arizona’s insensitivity. GO ARIZONA!!
It might surprise some to know that the great bulk of illegal immigrants crossing the border from Mexico are Mexicans! WOW! The key word here is illegal! Mexicans can be asked to prove that they are not illegally in the US. If they provide the proper information, they are released. Sounds just like the traffic stop of someone who was perhaps a little sleepy, but not under the influence. GO ARIZONA!!
The only way for a people to have liberty is to live with consistent constitutional government. When the government and its leaders become arbitrary in their enforcement of law, no one is safe...no one is free.
Tennessee needs to join Arizona, so we too can experience the fruit of liberty.
In a recent blog (Wednesday, 28 April 2010 - The Priority of Being Southern), I related the story of a Marine recruiter in Nashville rejecting a young man "because he had a Confederate Battle Flag tattooed on his shoulder in an area that would be completely covered by a t-shirt, and certainly by his uniform."
The Marine Corps seems has responded to its own political correctness by “clarifying” it position. According to Staff Sgt. Andrew Hurt, the public affairs representative for Marine Corps Recruiting Station Nashville, "We're not saying that a Confederate flag tattoo is racist, but it could potentially be. So we call that an 'exception-to-policy' tattoo. 'Exception-to-policy' tattoos have to be reviewed by a general."
He continued, "It's the same as if someone came in and said they were on heroin. Hard-drug waivers would have to be approved high up the chain as well. There's a myriad of [commanding general] waivers."
Now THAT certainly clarifies the policy – a Battle Flag tattoo ranks right up there with heroin addiction in getting a waiver. I didn’t realize that the USMC was allowing their recruiters to actively enlist addicts, but there you have it…straight from the horse's jackasse's mouth.
I don’t think they are going to change my attitude toward the depths of depravity to which the Empire has and will sink to accomplish its goals for world-wide conquest.
I just want a free Tennessee. Free from all this mental atrophy.
We must realign out thinking, we must think locally. As long as we view national elections as the priority, we have lost our freedom. This is the fatal flaw in the Tea Party movement – they think by electing the right Congressman, Senator, or President that everything will be all right. WRONG!
When the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified back in 1787, representation in the US House of Representatives was approximately 1 for every 48,000 people. Today the ratio is one US Rep. to 703,000 people and growing! Tennessee has a ratio of 1 to 64,000, in its own State House of Representatives. Better ratio, better representation!
But even closer to home, the local Sheriff is the one who can prevent federal and state authorities from harassing the county’s citizens. Those authorities are to report to the local Sheriff before they serve warrants on county residents. They are to submit to his authority. The local Sheriff has the recognized authority to “interpose” and protect the local citizens.
The local County Board or City Council is the most important legislative authority for the private citizen. Just a few weeks ago, a local board in California outlawed fast food restaurants from using toys as a promotional item. I consider that particular action a bit “juvenile,” but the point is that the local Boards and Councils DO have the authority to protect the local citizens from any threat – perceived or real.
We need to elect our best men to these local positions. Ignore national elections; don’t waste a dime or an hour of time on those elections. THINK LOCALLY !
Interposition as a doctrine has long legal and religious roots in American history. Interposition is a FIRST PRINCIPLE. Interposition is the concept of that “magistrate” which is closer to the people “positions” himself between the people and the unruly magistrate which is further away from the people (i.e. a county sheriff prevents a state or federal authority from arresting a citizen).
The doctrine of interposition was advocated by Thomas Jefferson and others as a necessary aspect of federalism, whereby a state could prevent the invasion of the reserved powers of state and people by some department of the federal government. John C. Calhoun of South Carolina on the eve of the War for Southern Independence reasserted interposition in the doctrine of nullification. Nullification and “States rights” are no more and no less than applications of interposition.
Interposition was the solution advanced by Vindiciae Contra Tyrranos.
But let us suppose, that in this our ship of state, the pilot is drunk, most of his associates are asleep, or after large and unreasonable tippling together, they regard their eminent danger in approaching a rock with idle and negligent jollity; the ship in the mean season instead of following her right course, that might serve for the best advantage of the owners’ profit, is ready rather to split herself. What should then a mater’s mate, or some other under offer do, who is vigilant and careful to perform his duty? Shall it be thought sufficient for him to pinch or punch them who are asleep, without daring in the meantime to put his helping hand to preserve the vessel which runs on a course to destruction, lest he should be thought to intermeddle with that which he has no authority nor warrant to do?...Shall he consent himself to admonish his associates of their duty, who to their utmost ability endeavour the contrary?
The lesson is simple: lesser magistrates have the duty and responsibility to protect those citizens under their charge – even to the point of armed conflict. Individuals on the other hand may resist, but cannot take up arms. Militias by definition consist of every able-bodied and armed man in the locale. Militia units organized outside the purview of a local official are a violation of legitimate Law. The lesser magistrates have the duty, the responsibility and the biblical authority to act!
May Tennessee be freed by responsible magistrates!
In The Tennessee Nation blog on Monday (10 May), I reviewed some of the qualities of a tyrant.
Among them were:
A tyrant “lops off those ears which grow higher than the rest of the corn, especially where virtue makes them most conspicuously eminent”
A tyrant “hates and suspects discreet and wise men, and fears no opposition more than virtue, …esteeming his own security to consist principally in a general corruption of all estates”
Just a few hours later, I was introduced to this video.
The occasion of Emperor Obama’s comments was the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. The tickets to this “black tie” event are considered a valuable possession in the District. Only the elite of government, commerce, and media are able to land an invite.
In front of the “best” that money can buy in Washington, the Emperor ridiculed the fine lawmakers and Governor of Arizona for attempting to enforce laws which the good, the bad, and the ugly of the Columbian Empire ignore...and they laughed!
This is not just a swipe at Obama; it could have just as easily been our previous Emperor, King George, the Second. So the charge is laid against both Republicans and Democrats; against the current black and the previous white man; against the current Muslim and the former faux-christian occupants of the White House.
They would easily “lop off” the reputations of those who have greater virtue by making jest of them. A tyrant hates nothing greater than true virtue. Arizonans have it!
One of our greatest problems in reviewing the politics of today is that we have no legitimate reference for what makes a good or bad ruler. We have forgotten how to judge.
In the Third section of the treatise Vindiciae Contra Tyrranos, the author defines a tyrant by sixteen separate qualities. They are timeless in their definition of a tyrant and can certainly give us a better evaluation of our current situation.
Here is a partial list of the qualities of a tyrant…in the words of a sixteenth century Frenchman:
A tyrant “lops off those ears which grow higher than the rest of the corn, especially where virtue makes them most conspicuously eminent”
A tyrant “gives out reports of intended conspiracies against himself, that he might have some colourable pretext to cut them off”
A tyrant “advances above and in opposition to the ancient and worthy nobility, mean and unworthy persons; to the end that these base fellows, being absolutely his creatures, might applaud and apply themselves to the fulfilling of all his loose and unruly desires.”
A tyrant “hates and suspects discreet and wise men, and fears no opposition more than virtue, …esteeming his own security to consist principally in a general corruption of all estates”
A tyrant “nourishes and feeds factions and dissentions amongst his subjects,… that he may the easier vanquish the remainder, advantaging himself by this division, like those dishonest surgeons who lengthen out their cures.
A tyrant “fills his garrisons with strange soldiers, builds citadels against his subjects, disarms the people, throws down their forts, makes himself formidable with guards of strangers, or men only fit for pillage and spoil, gives pensions out of the public treasury to spies and calumniating informers, dispersed through all cities and provinces.
A tyrant “have such numberless guards about them to drive off throngs of people from approaching them, yet cannot all those numbers secure them from doubts, jealousies and distrusts, which continually afflict and terrify their timorous consciences”
A tyrant “erects idle and needless trophies to continually employ his tributaries, that they might not have leisure to think on other things, …therefore he always prepares for, or threatens war.”
A tyrant “leaves no design unattempted by which he may fleece his subjects of their substance, and turn it to his proper benefit, that being continually troubled in gaining means to live, they may have no leisure, no hope, how to regain their liberty.”
A tyrant “desires much to be esteemed just and loyal in some affairs, purposely to deceive and betray more easily in matters of greater consequence.”
Our task is simple – apply the qualities which mark a tyrant to the leadership of today. But we must take the time to seriously evaluate, to judge our leaders. As we do so, it will be impossible not to recognize that the Empire’s leadership in the current and recent administrations have many of the marks of tyranny.
Our political leaders today have press agents and “spin doctors” to make every decision and every action appear to be for the benefit of the citizens. Because so much effort is made to deceive, I include a final word from Vindiciae:
To speak in a word, that which the true king is, the tyrant would seem to be, and knowing that men are wonderfully attracted with, and enamoured of virtue, he endeavours with much subtlety to make his vices appear yet masked with some shadow of virtue: but let him counterfeit never so cunningly, still the fox will be known by his tail: and although he fawn and flatter like a spaniel, yet his snarling and grinning will ever betray his currish kind.
Important in the context of the legality of the American War for Independence was the influence of the treatise entitled, Vindiciae Contra Tyrranos. It was first published in France in 1579 and translated into English in 1689. The English title is A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants. It was held by John Adams to be one of the most influential books in America on the eve of the Revolution. Probably second only to the bible itself.
Modern educators reveal much of their rewriting of the history of the American Revolution in that the role of Vindiciae is rarely mentioned, whereas Thomas Paine’s works always are. The reason is obvious; Vindiciae is thoroughly and biblically Christian while Paine is anti-Christian and a part of the intellectual environment of the French Revolution and of the modern university.
Thomas Paine arrived in America in December 1774. The First Continental Congress had already assembled in Philadelphia in September 1774. Tthe resistance had begun in North Carolina on 16 May 1771. Men had already died fighting for liberty. Although he enjoyed a popularity with several other writers of the time, selling thousands of copies of Common Sense, his influence in the colonies was marginal at best. Paine’s hopes and dreams were realized in France, not the English colonies!
Vindiciae Contra Tyrranos held, among other things, to these doctrines:
First, Any ruler who commands anything contrary to the law of God thereby forfeits his realm.
Second, Rebellion is refusal to obey God, for we ought to obey God rather than man. To obey the ruler when he commands what is against God’s law is thus truly rebellion.
Third, Since God’s law is the fundamental law and the only true source of law, and neither king nor subject is exempt from it, war is sometimes required in order to defend God’s law against the ruler.
Fourth, Legal rebellion requires the leadership of lesser magistrates to oppose, in the name of the law, the royal dissolution or contempt of law.
These are First Principles which the patriots of 1776 understood. We will need to understand them and apply them in our lives if we hope to regain our liberty.
“First blood” in the American War for Independence was 16 May 1771, on the Alamance, a small stream in North Carolina. The colonists were resisting British tyranny in the form of unjust taxation.
Those involved in the struggle for Independence which we call the American Revolution were by no means perfect men, nor was their cause at all times waged in conformity to principle. But the principles were nonetheless real and on the whole served to determine the course of the conflict.
Principles drove the patriots to fight more than any specific abuse of power by the Crown. Today, we have forgotten what the First Principles were. The patriots were opposed to the deliberate disruption of law and order which later characterized France, and, on the other hand,theywere equally hostile to blind obedience.
Blind obedience is the reaction expected in this age. Public schools are built around the concept of conformity and to the ideal of multiculturalism. Any question of authority or difference of opinion is met with severe repercussions. It has become the same in today’s business and political spheres.
Blind obedience is asserted in such comments as:
The idea of secession was settled in 1861.
Good citizens don’t question police requests/orders.
Go along and you’ll get along.
When the U.S. Supreme Court speaks, it’s the law!
Following World War II, Chief Justice Vinson asserted, “Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes.” His statement was meant as an argument for and a defense ofthe Supreme Court’s assertion of absolutism and a denial of any appeal beyond itself. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, as well as every President since, agreed.
Eisenhower: "Every step we take toward making the State the caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our master.” Reread that last line and ponder just how much we have moved toward making the USA into the Columbian Empire since the 1950's.
Kennedy: “The scarlet thread running thru the thoughts and actions of people all over the world is the delegation of great problems to the all-absorbing leviathan—the state … Every time that we try to lift a problem to the government, to the same extent we are sacrificing the liberties of the people.” The flip side of the same coin is that as we take on a caretaker/master, we become a people without liberty.
