Lawfully Speaking, Vol III, Issue No. 1
A Periodic Internet Political Column
Written by William H. Huff
Have we descended so close to bottom of the pit of national ignorance that we now see the passing over of government responsibilities as a "change" of government? What in the world is the Media talking about when they call an inauguration the "Peaceful Transfer of Power?" Yet, I have heard this many times lately, as if it were another Mantra for American Brainwashing 101. Are we supposed to believe there has been a revolution in this country, or a coup d'état whenever the allegedly opposite party takes over the White House?
First. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land! Therefore, there has been no lawful transfer of power since 1788 when it was duly ratified. At that time we had our most recent peaceful transition to a new government. Since then, we have had no other lawful government save that under and pursuant to the Constitution of the United States. A cursory reading of Article VI will bear this out. The President is only the chief servant of the people under the Constitution. He works for you. He is not your king. Repeat after me: We don't want a king! Those who want one can go back to England.
Second. It is stupid to call what just happened a transfer of power simply because there is not enough difference between the two coordinate branches of the National Socialist Party. Remember the last several years were supposed to be controlled by the influence of a Majority in both Houses, and yet there was not enough courage/revulsion to Remove a Pervert from the White House. Trust me, he didn't stay there because of some mere technicality. It was because there was not enough conviction or courage in either party to call in the fumigators and clean the place out. Although the Bushes may never have any Monica episodes, you can be sure there will be plenty of smoking guns to be conspicuously ignored by the obsequious Media. Only with the Bushes, they may more likely be actual guns. It gets harder and harder to estimate how many people will die under a particular administration.
Third. If you don't have enough evidence for yourself to believe the alleged differences are irrelevant, consider the sad and sorry precedent of providing presidential pardons to prevent prosecution - the sick deal-making that just went on so we can have no reasonable expectation of ever seeing the Clinton's et Al, or the Bushes, for that matter, brought to justice. Sweeping all the skeletons back into the closet, I suppose we should expect to hear "W" on MTV pretty soon singing along - "Don't Stop Thinkin' 'Bout Tomorrow - Yesterday's Gone, Yesterday's Gone!" I should have bought those futures in the "Ollie Shredder" when my broker called me!
Fourth. Ted Kennedy is now endorsing Dubya's "education emphasis." I can't think of a more odious endorsement. Can you? Was the Devil out of town? There is no Constitutional Basis for the Federal Government to be involved in Education, or Health, or Social Welfare, or a thousand other things they have stuck their big noses into. How quickly these people jump back into bed with one another! Turn down the sheets in the Lincoln Bedroom. Get some of those little mints to place on the pillows.
The solution is YOUR education - your private, individual, American Education - taken up as a personal individual responsibility. We should all know that the pious moralizations of our presidents should carry no more weight than a Jesse Jackson sermon on Adultery. While they are "saving the children" and "making education accessible for every child" and "building a national health care plan" and "making the world safe for Democracy" and "containing 'rogue' regimes who might be producing 'Weapons of Mass Destruction,'" they are ROBBING THE STORE. They are only about the business of handing over your sovereignty, your liberty and your property.
Their sweet words will not lull you to sleep if you contrast them to the words of the Founders and Framers. Read these words from the great Patrick Henry. Draw inferences. Make comparisons. THINK! Ask yourself how long Patrick Henry would be in office until he remarked that he agrees with the Brady Bill? Consider what accent you might be speaking in if the Founders had believed in disarming the citizenry. While Henry was advocating the violent throwing off of a tyrannical despot, we are advocating the most energetic exertion by each of our fellow citizens directed against the ignorance and complacency of our own minds which had been brought about by careful planning and generations of "education;" that has not been American in character, but has been a betrayal of all our original principles.
The words of Mr. Henry: "Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation [realize the United States is now more of a global force than ever England was in the past. Industrial military establishments are good for making bigger and better wars which feed upon and grow - sometimes taking on a life of their own]? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies [Does America today have so many "domestic enemies" as to require a Standing Army among us in Times of Peace]? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament [Is the growth of our present government any less foreboding than was the growth of British Imperialism?].
Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us [Remember Henry is speaking in the context of an America already under actual siege by the British and Mercenaries from other countries. Our case does not warrant violence at this time, since we are more likely victims of our own ignorance and apathy than of tyranny]!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed [does "W" support gun control?], and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house [tyrants justify surveillance "for public safety"]? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election [pun intended, but in a very real sense we just had "no election"]. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. [Henry recognized the "chains" of his generation. Do you recognize yours?]
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
What if "Compassionate Conservatism" turns out to be Code for "Global Corporate Fascist Socialism?" Would you be surprised? Are you equipped to stand against it? Will you know when it has been accomplished?
Additional suggested reading: "The American Ideal of 1776."