A mentor once told me, speaking of the Republican Party, “This isn’t a religion for me. I’m a Republican because it’s the party that I believe is best suited to promote my values and my vision. If it stops being that party, I’ll find another one.” The abandonment of Dede Scozzafava by the conservative voters in her district is that threat put into action. If the Republican Party has moved so far away from its conservative base that it has turned to promoting liberals like Scozzafava over real conservatives, simply because they think they have a better chance of winning an election, then it is time for a change.

One of the fundamental issues that I have with today’s Republican Party is that we allow ourselves to be defined by liberals and the liberal press rather than defining ourselves. As a former county party chairman, I had to live with county and state by-laws that forbade party officials from endorsing candidates in the primaries. It never happened in my county, but the fact that I might have one day been forced to officially support a liberal candidate always festered in the back of my mind.

The problem is that the National Republican Party, together with state and local parties, spend more time, money and effort trying to include everyone in the “big tent” than they do standing by the core conservative values that should be guiding them. I can understand how easy it is to fall into the trap of believing the goal is to elect people with R’s at the end of their names. Obviously, without enough R’s the party loses majority control of government, but this ignores the reality that control by Republicans isn’t the real goal. The real goal is holding our nation true to the conservative principles by which it was created.

Talk Radio personality Andrew Wilkow likes to say, “Individual Patriot first. Conservative second. Republican third.” What he means is that it is our first duty to be individuals who support our country, that we can do that best by living and promoting our conservative principles, and that the Republican Party is the currently the best tool that we have to do it with. If the Republican Party ceases to be the best tool for that job, then we are left with a couple choices. We can throw out the tool and get a new one, or we can refurbish our current tool and make it work how it’s supposed to.

Throwing out the tool would mean abandoning the Republican Party altogether and forming or joining a third party. This is a difficult course to follow, but it isn’t unheard of. There have been several ruling political parties throughout our history including Democrat-Republicans (one party, not the same as todays), Federalists, Whigs, Democrats, Republicans and dozens of smaller parties that exist in smaller numbers around the nation. It might be rare in our national history for a new party to come out of obscurity and take power at the federal level, and it is a difficult proposition, but it’s not impossible.

Refurbishing the current tool is the more likely scenario and would mean bringing the Republican Party back into line with its historical conservative principles. In order to forward those principles, we need to elect conservative Republicans. Not liberal Republicans. Not moderate Republicans. Conservative Republicans. Conservatives must retake control of the Party at all levels — from local precincts, to the statewide parties, to the National Republican Party. To succeed, we will have to make a stand against mediocrity, and so called moderates, and refuse to vote for or fund candidates that don’t truly represent us, regardless of whether or not they registered as Republicans. The first battle we face is to get conservative candidates nominated in the primaries, and only then can we carry those candidates through to victory in the general elections. We have to make our voices be heard loud and clear, and not allow the biased liberal press agencies decide which candidates are going to win our support.

I think that conservatives will benefit most by using third parties to force change in the Republican Party. By selectively abandoning the Republican Party, conservatives can bring about enough pressure on party leaders to force them to rethink which candidates they will endorse and support in the future. By supporting independent and third party candidates that more accurately represent our conservative values and principles, as the people of New York’s 23rd Congressional district have done, we can send the GOP a message about what kind of candidates we will accept. Give us a real conservative candidate to support, and we will. Send us a wishy-washy liberal like Dede Scozzafava? We’re gone. If we do it consistently, each and every time, the Republican Party will figure out that they should only send us candidates that share our values. Anything else will be a waste of our time, their money, and an erosion of their power base.

By regaining control of our party, and only supporting candidates that we want to support, we can define the Republican Party ourselves instead of letting the liberals and the liberal press define it for us. If the Republican Party continues to allow the likes of Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to carry our endorsement, then there is no reason for us to continue to be Republicans. We can throw our support behind a third party like New York’s State Conservative Party, or start a new one. If the Republican Party can retool, however, and show us that they can send us honest-to-goodness, conservative candidates, then we can continue to be part of the Grand Old Party. If we lose a few races in order to cement that position, then so be it. I would rather have a Democrat in office that we can challenge straight up in the next election than a sponge like Arlen Specter who sucks the party coffers dry, while voting with the Democrats anyway, and keeping the party from endorsing a real conservative candidate.

Conservatives are going to regain control of this country’s future and hold our country true to its conservative roots, regardless of the tools we use. The Republican Party just needs to decide whether it’s going to be the best tool for that job, or just a tool.

Knowing and understanding Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is essential to knowing and understanding the tactics that the statists, liberals, and socialists will use when they attack you for your conservative principles. DirtyRottenScoundrels has written twelve rules that conservatives should follow when we fight back:

DirtyRottenScoundrels » Blog Archive » Rules for Radicalized Conservatives

Rules for Radicalized Conservatives

Join us free at http://logchoice.ning.com – our new Conservative Activism Communication website – Get off the sideline and help us fight!
~~~~~~~~~~~~

In response to Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, I came up with twelve rules I think we should all adhere to in order to actively fight the liberal-socialist scum who are attempting to take control of every aspect of our lives:

Rules for Cons #1: Be informed and use irrefutable facts. Understand that liberals employ false logic (anti-American arguments are the only good arguments, while pro-American arguments are always bad arguments). Therefore, it is not worth your time or energy to “debate” a liberal. If you decide to engage one, be armed with well-documented facts that will destroy their fallacies. Liberals are hypocrites and liars. They are also poor losers. Expect ridicule and insane viewpoints from them.

Rules for Cons #2: Dismiss Political Correctness for the Marxist cultural doctrine that it is. It was designed by radicals to weaken and then destroy Western Civilization. If someone calls you a racist, recognize they are losing the debate. When they play the race card, toss it away and don’t play their game. All they will do when they are losing is change the rules.

Rules for Cons #3: Recognize and treat liberals for what they are: Anti-American. No matter what a liberal claims, unless he understands and believes in our Constitution, genuinely respects our historical and religious heritage, and actively supports the rights of ALL Americans, and not just of “Progressives,” he is irrefutably anti-American (and therefore, a member of the enemy within). View and treat him as such.

Rules for Cons #4: Expose and refute liberal media bias and disinformation.The Media is not a dispassionate Fourth Estate whose purpose is to counter political excesses and overreaching in our government (if it ever was). It is now solely a propaganda machine for the Fifth Column. A nation cannot be free without a free, unbiased media. We are not free.

Rules for Cons #5: Disobey and legally fight unconstitutional laws. Because Congress has for decades been derelict in its duty to steward our tax monies efficiently and wisely, we must now band together and NOT pay federal taxes. As long as Congress ceases to represent We the People, we must not provide them with OUR money. Imprisonment and fines may be levied. But we must not let our government treat us as cash cows to milk for their own purposes.

Rules for Cons #6: ALWAYS stand up for and uphold the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. WE have the true power in this nation, as documented in our Constitution. READ it and study it. Educate yourself on all available documents written by our Founders and Framers. Be proud of who you are and just how remarkable our Constitution really is!

Rules for Cons #7: Respect and remember the sacrifices made by our countrymen and women. NEVER forget the price they paid in blood and limb, and in lost dreams and potential. They chose to fight for this country, and in too many cases, ceased to exist so that our country could continue. They enabled you to enjoy the freedoms you have, and now, you must do the same for our future generations.

Rules for Cons #8: Preserve the spirit and principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution at all costs; and never forget our religious roots. Teach your children about American Exceptionalism. Establish educational programs and foundations to drown out the stream of liberal indoctrination that is demoralizing and perverting our youth, and turning them into dependent, weak-willed parasites on society. Instill in our youth a solid sense of self-reliance, self-determination, faith, respect, and courage. And, never allow our nation’s sovereignty to be diminished or to be subject to control by corrupt agencies, such as the United Nations.

Rules for Cons #9: Be willing to fight against governmental tyranny, as our forefathers instructed. Know that GOD, not our government, made us free. If our government attempts to take away our rights, it is no longer legitimate. It’s your choice to live free or to be enslaved.

Rules for Cons #10: Exemplify moral values in your everyday lives. Loyalty is a crucial American character trait. Despite powerful temptations, be ever faithful to your family, your country, and to our Creator. Only Jesus was perfect. If you do fail to uphold your values, do right by the aggrieved and make restitution. Resign immediately from any post of leadership until such time as others believe you are truly contrite and have proven it.

Rules for Cons #11: Organize and support your fellow Conservative; especially when it is inconvenient to do so. Never leave a patriot behind. Be “an American.” Also, encourage, support, and fight for others in need, or anyone who is being oppressed. Liberty is a universal right. Always be courageous in the face of evil arrogance. Act and do what is right. Indecision and ambivalence leads to moral equivalence, and that allows evil to flourish.

Rules for Cons #12: Recognize, name, and then fight the enemies of this land. We are in the midst of a culture war. It is not a genteel discussion that follows Robert’s Rules. It is a gutter fight. Expect to get bruised. Be willing to parry, thrust, and coupe de grace. Investigate, analyze, and expose the enemy. Make no mistake: Progressives have been at war with Americans for decades. Either fight, or they will succeed in turning this country from a representative republic into a despotic oligarchy where the individual has no rights.

We’ve all seen it. In our schools, our children’s schools, public meetings, television shows, leadership seminars, political speeches, and even in legislation supported by the President, the message is clear: we should all be doing community service. The fact is that the call to service is greater now than at any time in our country’s past, and the pressure to provide it even greater.

The pressure to conform to the growing demand to volunteer your self, in body and bankbook, can be daunting. When confronted with a group of peers, all telling you how much you are needed, it can be difficult to resist. When your child’s teacher tells you how important it is that you volunteer for the school bake sale, how can you say no? When your Mayor asks you to volunteer your time for the citywide cleanup, how can you refuse? And when the girl scout who lives next door asks you to buy cookies, or the soccer player who lives down the street asks you to buy raffle tickets, how can you not open your wallet and hand them the money?

Simple. Say “no.” Unless, that is, you want to do it, and can.

First of all, it’s not so much “community service” that I have a problem with. Serving your community has plenty of merit, and everyone should do it, provided of course that you are willing, and just as important, able. The problem arises when you are expected to give your time and your money to a cause that you don’t want to support. And more problems arise when you are expected to give your time and your money to a cause when you can’t afford it.

None of that matters to the people who are asking for you services, though. It doesn’t matter to them that your boss has cut back on your overtime and money is scarce, and it doesn’t matter to them that you took a second job to cover the bills, making your time even more scarce. What matters to them is their cause. You see, to the people who are promoting them, causes are just like children. Everyone thinks theirs is the most important, and anyone who thinks differently be damned. It doesn’t matter how much time or money you’ve given to any cause, even theirs, in the past, if you don’t see how important their baby is today, you’re dirt. Even if you can’t afford it, they expect your support, and they expect it now.

The important part of this is that giving your time and money to a cause when you can’t afford either hurts everyone in the long run. It hurts you, it hurts your family, and ultimately it even hurts the cause. If you give money that you can’t afford to support your local food bank, it impairs your ability to put food on your own table, and that of your family. If you sacrifice time you can’t spare, whether it’s time you could be working to pay your bills, or time you should have spent playing baseball with your son, to participate in the latest jail and bail fundraiser, you risk putting a strain on your budget, or on your family. Both situations threaten your future security, your attitude, and your willingness and ability to participate in community service in the future.

It is quite common these days to pressure our children to “give back” to their communities, provide volunteer service, and even sign pledges to provide even more service in the future. From their classrooms to their football practices to their leadership conferences, they are bombarded at every turn with the message that it is the responsibility of every able bodied youth to serve their communities. They are told that service will make them better people, and that their duty is to their fellow man. More disturbing, it has become a trend lately to begin making this expectation of service into a requirement.

President Obama’s official transitional website stated that “Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.”

Congress followed suit with HR 1388 that authorized a committee to study “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented…” When the language was stripped out of the final version of that bill, it was resurrected again as the still living HR 1444. It seems that our federal government is determined to make “volunteers” out of all our children.

The problem with this, aside from the fact that the 13th amendment of the Constitution clearly prohibits “indentured servitude,” is that if you take our youth, in the prime of their life, and put them on a mandated course of community service, you rob the community of it’s greatest potential producers, both physical and mental.

Can you imagine how different the world would be right now if a young college student named Bill Gates had been cutting weeds in the Boston National Historic Park instead of exploring the operations of computers and developing a BASIC interpreter for MITS? Gates built a fortune after that initial foray, which he later used to enable him to funnel billions of dollars into charitable organizations. He has now retired from the corporate world and donates all of his time to community service. Would the world be a better place if he had been doing community service while he was in college instead? Would have 100 hours of service to his fellow man when he was 20 been a good trade for the tens of billions of dollars that he has been able to raise for charity in his post corporate life?

If two college students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, had been serving dinners at the Palo Alto Opportunity Center instead of spending their evenings writing the code that would later power Google.com, they would have never had a billion dollars to fund the charitable wing of their company, Google.org, which works to fight global poverty, among other causes. Would the world have been better served by them providing community service while they were in school rather than later when they were successful entrepreneurs and wanted to make a difference in the world?

In reality, Americans are the most generous charitable givers in the world. In 2006, Americans donated a record $295 billion to charitable organizations, the vast majority of which came from individuals. That is in addition to the 61 million Americans who donated time and labor to charitable organizations during that same year.

By allowing and encouraging our budding youth to provide for themselves and their families first, and by empowering them to become responsible and productive members of society, we also put a down payment on their future ability to give back to society when they are more able, ready and willing to do so. Someone who is forced to “donate” their time or money to causes they may not support will likely become bitter and much less likely to support any cause in the future. Additionally, a person who gives willingly, and to causes or charities they believe in, will always give more. If our government moves forward with their plan to require mandatory service from every American, and dictates to what causes that service is given, they will likely guarantee that will be the only community service that person ever provides again.

The underlying motive here is that these people don’t want you to volunteer your time and your money, because that means you are in control. They want to decide how your time and money is used to benefit society as they see fit. They want to decide which charities are worthy of your time and they want to decide which charities are worthy of your money. They don’t care if you miss a day of work, or if you have a hard time paying your bills, and they don’t care that your kids could be spending their afternoons developing cold fusion in the basement lab instead of planting grass on a reclaimed garbage dump, because in the end all they want is control.

How do we fight back? How do we make sure that our time and money is dedicated to causes and charities that we believe in? How do we make sure that our families, and ourselves, don’t go without to provide for charities that we might not believe in? And how do we make sure that our children are given the opportunity to become successful in their own right before they are expected to “give back” to their “fellow man?”

The answer is still simple. Say “no.” Unless, that is, you want to do it, and can.

A sombering article about what happens when a government stops recognizing the individual rights of its citizens. Written by Jeff Snyder by way of LewRockwell.com Thanks to Eric for the link.

Plastic People

by Jeff Snyder
by Jeff Snyder

‘plas•tic’: . . . 5: capable of being deformed continuously and permanently in any direction without rupture” ~ mirriam.webster.com

Pierre Lemieux, a French Canadian, economist, professor, author, libertarian thorn in the flesh of the Canadian Leviathan, and a friend, has become a felon. Pierre refused to answer one of the questions on his application to renew his firearms license, and the licensing center refused to renew his license. He now faces the prospect of 10 years in prison for keeping firearms without a license.

I will tell you some of his story. At this stage you may be thinking that it’s going to be about gun control but, rest assured, it’s not. Too many see trees, only trees, everywhere they look, and never a forest. Every abuse, every injustice is singular, isolate, one more thing to be addressed, corrected or reformed – unfortunate, deplorable really, but circumscribed, in an arena separate from the rest of life, someone else’s problem, and someone else’s cause.

No, Pierre’s story is about what it means to be ruled, what it means to need permission from the state. And if you stop looking at trees and see the forest, then Pierre’s refusal to follow orders may pose a question for you: How far will you accommodate the state before you resist? Is there some limit to your ability to mold yourself to the state’s designs? At what point will the state cross a line within you, when what you are ordered to do is more than you will accept or bear, when you will say, “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise”?

Or does no such line exist? Are you that final object of all the state’s labors, that Quintessential Being that the state expects, demands and needs you to be: a plastic person?

---

In 1995 Canada passed an “Act Respecting Firearms and Other Weapons,” generally referred to simply as the “Firearms Act” or by its original bill number, C-68. At the time, Canada already had handgun registration. The Firearms Act created a long gun registry and a new firearm licensing authority, and required citizens to possess licenses to own firearms. The licenses are good for five years. Pierre registered his firearms, and submitted his first application for a firearms license in 1996, which was granted, his first application for renewal in 2001, which was granted, and his second request for renewal in 2007, which was denied.

Pierre believes that Canadians have the right to own firearms without government approval. In fact, he has written extensively on the subject to educate his fellow Canadians and to peaceably restore respect for this right. Nevertheless, like most people, Pierre complied with the registration and licensing scheme in order to keep what he loves and to live a “quiet life.” Unfortunately, despite his best efforts to comply, Pierre ran into his own personal limit with an impertinence in the license application that he simply could not abide, viz., question 6(d) of the license application, which asks:

“During the past two (2) years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy?”

The instructions to the application state that all personal history questions must be answered, and that “[I]f you answer YES to any of the questions . . . you MUST provide details on a second page. . . . If details are not provided, your application cannot be processed. A YES answer does not mean your application will be refused but it may lead to further examination.”

In each of 1996, 2001 and 2007, Pierre, waging what he describes as “a dignity battle” against the law, refused to answer this question, instead responding that “My love affairs are none of your business / Ça ne vous regarde pas.” In 2007, Pierre took the additional step of sending, by registered mail, a copy of his application, a cover letter and three pages of his book, Confessions d’un coureur des bois hors-la-loi, which chronicles his resistance against Canadian gun control laws, to the Prime Minister of Canada.

Two months after his license expired, having heard nothing from the licensing center, Pierre made a freedom of information request to find out the status of his application. Eventually, he received word that his license renewal was denied by reason of his failure to answer question 6(d). Pierre now owns firearms – registered firearms – in violation of the law, a crime punishable by 10 years in prison. On the webpage where he chronicles his resistance to the Canadian license law, Pierre wonders: ” Will I be the first Canadian to be jailed for refusing to tell the state about his love life? Not the last one, I fear.”

---

If an activity is licensed by the state, then it is a privilege conferred and controlled by the state, and not a right. The conditions on which the privilege is conferred are matters of legislative or administrative grace; the person may not lawfully engage in the activity and is not affirmatively protected from state incursion simply by reason of being a person, as would be the case with an “individual right.” The Firearms Act empowered an agency with a mandate to create and administer a licensing program and vested very broad powers in the agency to establish the particulars of the program. The Act clearly establishes that ownership of firearms in Canada is a privilege conferred only upon those deemed worthy by satisfaction of conditions determined by the licensing authority.

Stop and consider for a moment this by method of “legislation.” The founding “law” simply directs a combined legislative/judicial/executive agency to create and enforce a program without bothering to prescribe the contents of the program or even any significant limits on the exercise of that “authority.” Instead, it vests the agency with very broad discretion to define and administer the program. This form of legislation is, historically, a favorite with advocates of gun control, but it is by no means atypical of modern law-making, and is often used to control all sorts of activities. For example, the act establishing the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States is in large part of this nature, being essentially a mandate to the agency to go forth and create clean air and water.

Consider what this type of “legislation” says about how truly, deeply, worried your “representatives” are about your lives. They cannot be troubled to precisely define the contents of the “laws” to which you will be subject, to define or circumscribe the conditions that may ultimately be imposed upon you or resultant burdens upon you and, therefore, do not limit how impertinent, overreaching or arbitrary they may become. Instead, the laws to which you will be subject largely or in significant part are devised by men and women who are not subject even to the minimum accountability of having to be re-elected to maintain office, who are protected from removal from office by civil service laws and who will never, ever be accountable to the innumerable citizens they harm for the harebrained regulations they impose. The legislators don’t have to make any of the difficult decisions, won’t be blamed for agency regulations that outrage the electorate, and it’s just fine with them if you have to incur significant costs in time, money and energy to bring actions in the courts to overturn the agency’s edicts, or to lobby the legislators to bring their administrative dogs to heel. There’s certainly no problem with more lobbying, it means more political contributions! The legislators dodge responsibility and accountability to the electorate, and position themselves as saviors who can remedy the abuses of the administrative agencies. An ideal system, really!

For reasons known only to it, the Canadian licensing bureau decided that it needs to know details about each applicant’s love life, job losses, and bankruptcies in order to determine whether to issue a firearms license. Doubtless many of us are dulled, if not numb, to the presumptions of wisdom and competence, and intrusiveness, of government agencies, but consider the god-like heights that the Canadian firearms licensing bureau claims as its own. The air is indeed rare there! It is going to make decisions whether to grant or deny a firearms license based on its evaluation of your love woes, job loss or bankruptcy!

“Provide details,” it commands. Assuming you can get past the monumental presumptuousness that demands that you submit, as a matter of official record, intimate details about your life to be mulled over by some police official, really, how does one respond to that? What level of detail, exactly, are they demanding? Would “My wife and I were divorced six months ago” be sufficient? Or is one required to add some salient, hopefully spicy details? “My God! For a while there, it was almost like “War of the Roses!” I refused to leave the house! She smashed some of my things and in retaliation I uprooted her beloved rose bushes! The tears! The screaming fits of rage! It was a complete nightmare! Now it’s over and, fortunately for all concerned, we live in completely different provinces!” Or does one add page after page of Henry James-like psychological detail of every gesture, facial expression and step of the breakup, the job loss, the bankruptcy?

Assuming one provides sufficient details, the agents who process the applications will then decide what significance these personal facts have for firearms ownership. This is pretty impressive! Consider that state-licensed psychiatrists, actual medical doctors who have specialized in the scientific study of mental health, cannot reliably predict, do not even claim to be able to predict, who is and is not going to commit an act of violence. Yet fear not and be ye amazed! The intrepid agents of the licensing bureau can and will determine who among those recently wounded in love, employment or credit relationships may safely own a firearm, doubtless relying upon gut instincts finely-honed through years of processing applications!

Maybe the licensing bureau isn’t going to use psychological profiling. Maybe, instead, the details it needs are the names and phone numbers of your ex-lover, your ex-boss and the creditors who lost a bundle when you filed for bankruptcy. And maybe the bureau will then contact them and make inquiries. “Hello. This is Officer Smith from the Firearms Licensing Bureau. Your [choose one] [ex-lover], [former employee] [former debtor] is asking us to renew his firearms license so that he can continue to own firearms for the next five years. Are you okay with that? Does that give you any cause for concern?” And then the bureau can decide whether to issue a license based on what these people say about you. Not quite a judicial determination of the existence of a crime, you understand, with an actual crime charged, penalties for perjury, the opportunity to confront and cross-examine your accusers and rules about what is and isn’t admissible evidence, but hey! Good enough for administrative agencies, which make their own rules and act as legislature, judge and enforcer.

Who knows how the licensing bureau will evaluate this information? They want it, and they will act upon it, and that is all the applicant needs to know. The activity for which the supplicant need a license is a privilege conferred by the state and, therefore, at bottom rests on nothing more than meeting their conditions, i.e., on pleasing the authorities, who most assuredly will do as they please.

This is what it is to be ruled, for your activities to be privileges conferred by the state, for the conditions of your life to be determined based on some legislator’s or administrator’s “good ideas” for governance. This is what it is to have your life controlled by another who has the power to fine you and throw you in jail for failing to comply with his conditions.

This is why American gun owners vehemently oppose registration of guns and licensure of firearms ownership. It doesn’t matter what the law says or whether it’s a “good idea” or what its supposed socially-worthwhile, beneficially-motivated “intent” is. It’s how the law’s power is wielded that determines the conditions of your life. This is why, when the NRA and gun owners supported “shall issue” concealed carry licensing laws, currently in place in 37 states, the laws were carefully crafted to specify precisely the procedures to be followed, to enumerate the only conditions that could be imposed, all of which were objectively determinable and none of which depended upon the exercise of agency discretion, and to impose time and cost limits for processing, so that, upon satisfaction of strictly objectively verifiable criteria, the licensing authority was required to issue the permit. This is why American gun owners demanded that state legislatures pass these new laws and repeal the old licensing laws that were enacted in the early 20^th Century, laws like the Sullivan Act, which still governs the residents of New York City. While appearing on the surface to be even-handed, those older statutes simply conferred broad, nebulous discretion on a licensing authority, with the result that they have been and, where still in effect, are, administered in a way to insure that only the “right” sort of people obtain permits. In New York City, this means that men like Donald Trump and Howard Stern get carry permits, but not the multitudes whose lives just aren’t important enough to warrant the privilege of self-protection. (For a more extensive discussion of the arbitrary nature of discretionary licensing statutes, see this policy analysis of “shall issue” concealed carry laws.)

---

While Pierre is now a felon because of his nation’s gun control laws, never forget that this is how he got in trouble with the state: He acted on the basis that there are some details about his life, important to him, that are his affair and his alone.

No one who believes he has the right to control you, who believes, further, that he has the right to engineer a society according to his ideas and plans, will ever accept this. It is an affront to his arrogance, to his arrogation of power to control you as he deems fit. To have “lawful authority” – really, political power – is precisely to have a free hand to use coercion to suit your purpose, without necessity of justification. If you are simply carrying out a prescribed course, if there is no discretionary element to your “authority” that permits you to shape it and use it to your purpose, it is not power but mere processing and ministration: you are a mere servant, a functionary, a minion. In brief, you are you: a servant and whatever government requires you to be, and manifestly not a king, a sovereign, a president, a semi-divine one, a colossus bestriding the earth.

Anyone who believes they have the right to control you ultimately must act ruthlessly, because a person does not control another unless, in the absence of willing consent or consent obtained through misrepresentation or fraud, he will compel the other to act as he commands. Ask yourself why a refusal to answer a single question about your love life is accompanied by a threat of, and merits, 10 years in prison. The failure to answer this question inflicts no actual harm on any citizen. The punishment cannot, therefore, be for harm the refusal has caused any specific victim or “society” at large. No, the injured party here is the state itself. The refusal to answer the state’s question is an affront to the state’s “authority,” and its claims to operate, and manage society, as it sees fit. The real “crime” is that the subject has failed to follow the state’s orders. He has failed to submit to and participate in the state’s project to control or engineer society in accordance with the state’s plans. Possibly, for example, the licensing bureau’s motivation for asking about love woes, job losses and bankruptcies is that it hopes to be able to prevent some future crimes (with guns, at least) based on certain facts that the licensing bureau believes have some degree of predictive value for determining who will and won’t commit crimes. That is, it may be implementing a general policy directive to shape an aggregate outcome (a reduction in crime) based on the fact that a certain small percentage of ex-lovers, ex-employees and bankrupts will commit armed violence against their former lovers, former employers or creditors. In refusing to answer the question, then, the applicant thwarts the state’s plans and rebukes the state’s claim to an authority to control or engineer society in accordance with its purpose. The “crime” is not a personal crime, like murder, robbery or pollution of the air or water, but a political crime. The essence of the crime is lèse majesté. The “criminal” has refused to obey the state’s fiat, and in so doing has committed an intolerable affront to the state’s claim to an absolute “authority.” He has shown his willingness to keep and act upon his own counsel and not follow orders. The state cannot let that stand and continue to be a state. It is the ultimate crime, and that it is why it is dealt with ruthlessly, meriting the same punishment that Solzhenitsyn informed us that Stalin’s political prisoners in the Gulag received for rebukes to authority: a tenner. Evidently, like minds, each claiming a right to control and engineer both man and society, perceive like threats, and respond with a like “solution.”

In his letter to the Prime Minister, Pierre notes that he is ashamed that he has not joined the Canadian heroes who are resisting the Firearms Act by refusing to register their guns or apply for licenses. These peaceful, otherwise law-abiding men and women occasionally hold open protests in front of government buildings daring the authorities to arrest them and throw them all in jail for ten years. According to information obtained by Pierre under a freedom of information request, as of February 2009, the Royal Mounted Canadian Police estimate that there were 185,925 owners of long guns alone who are not in compliance with the firearms registration and license laws.

We know now that Pierre need not have been ashamed, for it is clear that he is no less heroic. The state pushes and pushes; too much is never enough. It demands nothing less than absolute, complete control over an avidly obedient populace. To the state, there is no difference between 99% compliance and zero compliance. If there is one thing, one thing alone that it commands that you are unwilling to do for it, you have rebuked its authority and you are a threat, and the state will take you down. Pierre tried to comply for the sake of an undisturbed, peaceful life, but there was one thing the state demanded that he was not willing to do. There is something within him, some inherent dignity, he is not willing to relinquish or alter to suit the bastards. And so he refused to act as he was commanded to act, he refused to be a plastic person, forever conforming himself to the shapes devised for him by men and women with delusions of grandeur and whose tools for creating utopia are tasers, guns, fines and prison. And for that he may get ten years in jail.

So this is how it is. If you can labor “within the system” forever to obtain the reform that will correct this abuse, and that one, and each and every other abuse that arises, now and forever; if you can labor forever to exchange your current masters for better ones, a better Congressperson, a better Senator, a better President; if, in short, your idea of “citizenship” or “activism” is playing whack-a-mole with those lording it over you; if you can wait forever for the permission that you need to live life peaceably as you envision it; if you can march forward uplifted on Hope and Change; if you can find reasons and make excuses forever why Change cannot be achieved fully, just yet; if, in short, nothing can cause you to call into question the fundamental belief that it is good and proper for some people to have a “right” to control your life and the rest of society, using, as their tools, lying, fraud, manipulation, threats, grants of legal monopolies, protection and immunities, payoffs (“subsidies”), confiscation, fines, tasers, guns and jail; and if, when their commands are finally issued directly to you and you are confronted with tasers, guns, fines and jail, everything about you is conformable, malleable; if at no point will you ever openly refuse to comply with their plans when you are ordered to do so; then relax, the state is not coming for you. You are a plastic person, deforming yourself to fit into the shape that the state designs for you. You are no threat and you can be controlled because there is no one there to offer any resistance.

But if there is some peaceful activity you care about deeply, if you invest your life in it and the state should seek to control this in a way that that truly hurts you, then you will collide with the state, and what you love will be used against you. That is how the state operates. That is how it implements its self-described mission of “protecting” and “caring” for you. And if, because of this thing you love, you have some limit, some thing or aspect of yourself you will not give up or alter, then you are a threat, then you are an affront and rebuke to your government’s assumption of complete control. You have demonstrated that you will not dance to the state’s tune, that you are an individual and not a cog in the state’s machine, and Pierre’s story may someday also be your story.

---

Pierre has filed a motion of appeal before the Québec provincial court, asking that the license refusal be quashed and apologies issued. He also argues that the Firearms Act and related criminal code provisions are unconstitutional, and that he does not need any license to exercise his traditional liberty to possess firearms. The court date has been set for May 26 and 27, 2009, in room 207 of the Mont-Laurier Courthouse, Québec, starting at 9:30 a.m. each morning. Richard A. Fritze, an Alberta lawyer and well-known defender of Canadian firearms owners and their rights, is representing Pierre pro bono. In addition, several expert witnesses will testify on behalf of Pierre’s position, including Joyce Malcolm, author of To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origin of an Anglo-American Right, Colin Greenwood, a now retired senior English police officer who authored a landmark work on the history of England’s gun control laws and their failure to reduce violent crime, and Professor Gary Mauser, who co-authored an article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy with Don Kates titled, “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?

These experts have generously agreed to assist Pierre for only the cost of their travel and accommodations, but Pierre needs funds to pay for what will most likely be a long and difficult battle. Please consider supporting him. If you wish to assist Pierre’s fight by donating, please contact Paul Rogan, publisher of Canadian Access to Firearms, who is acting as a pro bono fund-raiser. Alternatively, The Canadian Constitution Foundation has established a “Pierre Lemieux Legal Fund.” to provide funds to support Pierre’s case and you may instead donate earmarked funds to the CCF. Mr. Rogan can provide details on how to make your contribution through CCF.

May 6, 2009

Jeff Snyder [send him mail] is an attorney who works in Manhattan. He is the author of Nation of Cowards – Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control, which examines the American character as revealed by the gun control debate. He occasionally blogs at The Shining Wire. Read this interview with him.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Jeff Snyder Archives

Obama says he’s not coming after our guns? Give me a break! An article by Brian Darling by way of HumanEvents.com.

Legal Advisor Nominee Advocates Global Gun Control
by Brian Darling
05/04/2009

Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Harold Koh, a former Dean of the Yale Law School, to be Legal Advisor to the State Department. One of the many concerns with Koh is his belief that international organizations should be empowered to regulate the Second Amendment right to own a firearm.

On April 2, 2002, Koh gave a speech to the Fordham University School of Law titled “A World Drowning in Guns” where he mapped out his vision of global gun control. Koh advocated an international “marking and tracing regime.” He complained that “the United States is now the major supplier of small arms in the world, yet the United States and its allies do not trace their newly manufactured weapons in any consistent way.” Koh advocated a U.N.-governed regime to force the U.S. “to submit information about their small arms production.”

Koh supports the idea that the U.N. should be granted the power “to standardize national laws and procedures with member states of regional organizations.” Koh feels that U.S. should “establish a national firearms control system and a register of manufacturers, traders, importers and exporters” of guns to comply with international obligations. This regulatory regime would allow U.N. members such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran to have a say in what type of gun regulations are imposed on American citizens.

Taken to their logical conclusion, Koh’s ideas could lead to a national database of all firearm owners, as well as the use of international law to force the U.S. to pass laws to find out who owns guns. All who care about freedom should read his speech (pdf). Senators need to think long and hard about whether Koh’s extreme views on international gun control are appropriate for America. [Read More...]

A great article from Joan Swirsky. You can read the whole thing here. Thanks to @RyanJGill for the link.

The President Who Hates His Country

By Joan Swirsky Sunday, May 3, 2009

In the last century, the impassioned words and actions of patriots like Winston Churchill – along with America’s heroic help and sacrifice – saved Europe. The eloquence and actions of “I’ve been to the mountaintop” Martin Luther King Jr. brought America to an unprecedented level of social justice.The peerless oratory and tireless diplomacy of the man who would become Israel’s Foreign Minister, Abba Eban convinced the entire world that after the wanton murder of six-million Jews in the Holocaust its straggling survivors deserved their own state of Israel. The inspiring words and decisive actions of President Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, tore down the Berlin Wall, and restored economic prosperity to America. The efforts of these towering figures resulted in a more highly-evolved world.

We have also seen the opposite in totalitarian leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, and Saddam Hussein, among others, who exploited their masses, destroyed their economies, brought havoc, turbulence, grief and massive death within and outside of their countries, and made the world a more dangerous and threatening place.

The one thing all of these virtuous and evil men had in common was love for their respective countries, in fact a burning passion that superseded all else. The virtuous believed in freedom and democracy. The evil believed in subjugation of their peoples and lifetime tenures for themselves in order to actualize their goals of conquering their eternal enemies – Americans and Jews.

Today, we have a new crop of inveterate America- and Jew-haters, among them the Marxist leader of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s president Daniel Ortega, Iran’s “death-to-America-and-Israel” study-in-abnormal-psychology Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the ever-sabotage-America and anti-Semitic “leaders” of the 22-Arab states that surround Israel.

I have either read about or observed firsthand all of these people. Yet in my decades of commenting on the political scene, I cannot recall a single leader of any country or regime who has ever spoken negatively of his country or tolerated others speaking ill of the land or the people he represented

Until now

[Read More...]

This is why Americans should be armed. Do you think it is an accident that these guys set up shop in California, where they know that an average person they come across has no chance of being armed and able to mount an adequate defense?

The founders of our country saw the need of a well regulated, and well armed militia who was able to defend themselves and their country against impending threats. If defending yourself against illegal aliens, who are growing illegal drugs, and threatening Americans citizens on public lands, isn’t what they had in mind, then I have know idea.

When I commented on the original site that this was “One more reason to always be armed,” a guy named Joe responded:

“Yeah, your single handgun/rifle is going to be real useful against pot farmers with “five high powered rifles, equipped with rifle scopes and numerous rounds of ammunition” — not to mention greater numbers and a familiarity with the area.

“Good way to get yourself shot, more like.”

Since they moderated my reply (I guess I was too extreme for them) I give the basics of it here. Yes, my “single handgun/rifle is going to be real useful against pot farmers with “five high powered rifles, equipped with rifle scopes and numerous rounds of ammunition.” In fact, that sounds a lot like what I carry in my truck, and my camper.

The fact is that criminals are lazy and unlikely to have adequate training with their weapons. I, on the other hand, took my last Elk on the run at 600 yards and can empty two 13 round magazines into the center of a target at 25 yards in under 12 seconds with my .45 ACP. I’m not braggin, because that doesn’t make me special. Many people I know can do the very same thing.

The point is, if the pot growers would have never confronted the campers had they thought they posed even the remotest threat, which is why they choose to set up shop in places like California, where they know the public has a 99.99% chance of not being armed.

As I’ve said before, being armed is about making the choice yours. If only your attacker has a weapon, he makes all the choices. If your armed, you make your own. That doesn’t even mean that you have to defend yourself. In many situations, caution would dictate that you still comply, and never attack, but even then, as long as you have a .45 tucked neatly into your waistband, the choice is yours.

the adventure life

get outside and play

Marijuana Growers Chase Campers From Natl. Forest

by steve casimiro ? April 20, 2009 ? Post a comment

This week really wasn’t planned to be an all-pot kind of week, it’s just working out that way. (Today’s the stoner new year, right? But if you’re stoned, isn’t every year basically 1976?) Regardless, in Los Padres National Forest, California, two pot farmers scared off some campers in a high-speed dirt road rally that ended with arrests and confiscation of $26 mill in herb. The Santa Barbara County sheriff’s report reads better than I could rewrite, so here it is in its entirety:

New Cuyama – On Friday, 04-17-09, at approximately 11:30 a.m., two adults, who had been camping in the Aliso Park area west of New Cuyama, came across an active marijuana garden. While in the area, the campers were approached by two Hispanic male adult subjects who were tending to the marijuana garden.

The subjects attempted to converse with the campers, however due to a language barrier, they were unsuccessful. The subjects requested that the campers remain in the area, until the arrival of the “boss” who spoke English. The campers became fearful and packed up their gear and left the area. While the campers were driving down the dirt road, they were approached by a pick up truck traveling the opposite direction. As they passed the truck, they noticed the occupants seemed very interested in them. The truck stopped and the driver exited and waived for the campers to come back. They ignored his request and kept driving, believing he was the “boss” that the two subjects had referred to earlier. The driver returned to his truck and began chasing the campers down the mountain. During the chase, the truck came dangerously close to the campers’ vehicle several times.

[Read More...]

Matt Drudge over at the DRUDGEREPORT pointed out this speech today from Governor Rick Perry of Texas dressing down the federal governments blatant disregard for the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, and reaffirming states’ rights and sovereignty. It is refreshing to see a governor stand up to the federal government and demand a return to the federalism envisioned by our forefathers.

I called for the governors of the several states to stand up for their sovereign rights in my post from last week, and it looks like at least some of them are thinking along the same lines. This kind of thinking could get the governor a special file in the DHS’s rightwing fanatic watchlist though!

Let’s all join him. The first file to 100 pages wins!

WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACKS RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTY
Tue Apr 14 2009 08:44:54 ET
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

Perry continued: “Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas.”

[VIDEO]

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

Developing…

Governor Perry might only think that he is speaking for millions of Texans that are feeling oppressed by the Federal Government, but he is speaking for tens of millions of Americans that are feeling the same way. Find out where your local Representatives stand on HCR 50, and let them know that you want them to support it!

In the 25+ years since the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) was signed into law by President Nixon it has been used like a shock collar to keep individual States from wandering too far away from the herd. I’s initial purpose was noble, but in the quarter century since its inception the ESA has been corrupted to such an extent that it is completely unrecognizable as a successful, manageable, or even Constitutional piece of legislation. Instead of allowing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with dozens of environmental groups, to continually erode each States individual sovereignty, the States need to stand up to Washington and challenge their authority to impose this failed policy.

The purpose of the ESA is to protect species that are identified as threatened or endangered and the ecosystems that they depend on. There are some examples of success among the plants and animals listed as threatened or endangered in the United States. The most notable is the American Bald Eagle, whose population of just 417 pairs in 1963 increased to an extraordinary 11,040 pairs when is was delisted in 2007. Another is the Ursus arctos horribilis, also known as the good old Grizzly Bear, whose population in the Yellowstone area more than doubled from a measely 271 bears in 1975 to more than 580 in 2005. He was also delisted in 2007. In fact, there have been 19 success stories in the nearly three decades of protection given by the ESA to 1,891 species of plants and animals around the world. Yes, you read that correctly. There have been only 19 species removed from the endangered species list because their populations have recovered. That is a success rate of about 1%. For all of the taxpayer money that has been spent on 589 distinct recovery plans, and for all of the private property owners and businesses that have been bankrupted in the name of habitat protection and restoration, there have been only 19 success stories to come out of the Endangered Species Act. It is one of the most wildly unsuccessful government programs in history.

Species can be added to the list as threatened or endangered in one of two ways under the ESA. First, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), can directly list species through their candidate assessment programs. The second is by petition. Any individual or organization can petition the USFWS or the NOAA to list a species. Both processes are long, drawn out, and nearly impossible to accomplish. Did I say that there were only two ways? I forgot one didn’t I? The ESA only lists two, but our liberal federal courts have created another, and as a result, the new and preferred way to get a species listed is to file a lawsuit. The federal courts are clogged with lawsuits against the federal government, demanding that they list one species or another.

The listing process, however, is not nearly as long and drawn out as the process of delisting, and so far, only 45 species have ever been delisted. Presently, there are only six reasons that a species can be delisted. The first is extinction. Obviously, once an animal is extinct they don’t need federal protection anymore. Thankfully, only two species are known to have gone extinct while they were listed (7 went extinct before they were listed). The second way is when new populations are discovered that increase known population levels to a number that warrants delisting. That has happened five times. The third is taxonomic reclassification, which has happened ten times (I’m not even going to try to explain what that means, because I have no idea). The fourth is because of a listing rule violation, which has happened once and the fifth is by an act of Congress, which has happened once. The last is as a result of recovery, which has happened only 19 times in the history of the ESA (as we discussed earlier).

I have to admit though, that the number 19 is probably not really indicative of the number of species that have actually recovered. Realistically many more species probably should be delisted, but lawsuits have also become the new preferred way of making sure that no species ever gets taken off the list. It doesn’t matter if the species meets the population goals set by the biologists charged with their recovery, and it doesn’t matter if their habitat size expands to reach the goals set by their recovery plans. Either way, the conservation and the environmental groups that feed off the broken legislation file lawsuit upon lawsuit, blocking the delisting of even species that have recovered beyond even the most liberal benchmarks. The constant meddling by the courts in these matters have made the ESA almost completely unmanageable, and utterly useless as a tool protect endangered wildlife.

Ultimately though, the biggest problem with the Endangered Species Act is that it has no Constitutional foundation. The United States Constitution gives the federal government very specific powers, and nowhere among their number is the power to manage wildlife. The power to raise armies and declare war? Check. The power to mint coins and print money? Check. The power to protect interstate commerce? Check. The power to bankrupt a farmer and take the private land that his family has cultivated for six generations in order to create a viable habitat for the Southeastern Dismal Swamp Shrew and force its host state to spend millions of dollars on politically motivated, non-scientifically contrived, court ordered and unattainable recovery plans? Hold the check! Since the Tenth Amendment guarantees to the States any powers not specifically granted to the federal government, the individual States are Constitutionally empowered to manage their own wildlife without interference from Washington!

The reintroduction of wolves into the greater Yellowstone area by the USFWS, and the subsequent lawsuits that have prevented their delisting in Wyoming but allowing their delisting in Idaho and Montana, on completely political instead of scientific reasons, has presented fertile ground for a challenge by the States of this unsuccessful and unmanageable legislation. This is an opportunity for the individual States to reclaim control of their own jurisdictions, and put the out of control U.S. Congressional and Executive Branches back in their places. The Governors and Legislatures of each State should direct their Attorney Generals to immediately file suit against the federal government and to challenge the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act on the grounds that it violates the Tenth Amendment and infringes on the sovereignty of the individual States. This is a battle that should be taken all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

It’s time to take off the leash that the federal government has put on our States, and retake control of our lands, our wildlife, and our rights. The Endangered Species Act, as it currently exists, needs to be made extinct. Individual States, who are much more qualified to manage their own wildlife populations, must retake the command they once held over their own jurisdictions, kick the Washington bureaucrats out of our forests, our swamps,  our deserts, our rivers and our lakes, and send them scurrying back to D.C. where they belong.

In a recent discussion, term limits came up as a topic, and as usual, I took a side. Personally, I am against Congressional term limits, and I said so. I believe they are nothing more than an attempt by one group of people to dictate to another group of people who they can, or more accurately in this case, can’t vote for. As is often the case when I defend my position against Congressional term limits, it was pointed out in the discussion that the President is limited to two terms. I was asked, as an opponent of Congressional term limits, if I also opposed Presidential term limits. The answer is, no, I don’t.  On the surface, the dichotomy between my two perspectives on term limits for the separate branches of federal government may look hypocritical at best, but to understand my viewpoint, a more in depth discussion about the nature of the elected offices is necessary.

First, as we all know, the members of the House of Representatives are considered to be the closest representatives to the people. This is evidenced by both the fact that they are subject to election every two years, and the fact that they typically represent more specific groups of people (districts). They are meant to be close and well known to those they represent.  As much as Nancy Pelosi makes me cringe, she is sadly quite illustrative of the people she represents in her home district (San Francisco, CA). I am more concerned that Democrats representing all the other districts in the nation would see fit to elect her their leader and put her in line for Presidential ascension. Term limits won’t protect us from that kind of stupidity, especially since her power has more to do with her success at getting supporters elected to key seats around the nation — thereby taking majority control of the House, and majority control of the House Democratic Caucus at the same time — than any power that comes from longtime entrenchment. As a result of this direct representation, I stand by my position against term limits on members of the House.

The Senate started a little differently. They began as appointed representatives of the states, chosen by each state’s legislature, and not by popular vote. It wasn’t until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1917 that Senators were elected by popular vote of the people, and became a body directly representative of the people. I won’t into detail about the corruption that spurred the change (just think of Governor Blagojevich and his attempt to sell Illinois’ open Senate seat multiplied by 96), but the 17th amendment clarifies their role as direct representatives of the people of their respective states. Their six year terms are meant to give them a little more insulation from mob rule, and create a little bit of stability in the government, even when the tides of populist opinion shift quickly. Since Senators are also direct representatives of the people, I stand by my position against term limits on their elections, also.

The President, however, is a different animal. The Constitution specifically creates a process of election for the President that removes him from a position of being a direct representative of the people. The Constitution clearly defines his role as that of The President of the United States. As much as we often like to think of him as such, he is not The President of the People of the United States. It might seem inconsequential, but it is an important distinction. Like Senators had been until 1917, the President is not elected by the people, but by representatives of the individual states, as determined by their respective legislatures. Until Franklin Delano Roosevelt, U.S. Presidents had always abided by George Washington’s unwritten rule that no President should serve more than two terms. FDR’s successful bid for four terms was enough to spur the adoption of the 22nd amendment, which limited future Presidents to just two terms. There were many underlying reasons for the amendment, but primary among them was to protect the nation from the future possibility that one man could hold the Presidency for so long that his individual power would grow to supersede that of the balanced government as a whole. Examples of the dangers of such power building at the executive level are abundant throughout the world. Since the President, as dictated by the Constitution, is not a direct representative of the people, and since the danger of allowing one man to stay in a such a unique position of power for too long is all to real, I support the term limits placed on the office by the 22nd amendment.

The framers of the Constitution weren’t perfect and they obviously didn’t think of everything. This is evidenced by the fact that we have 17 amendments beyond the Bill of Rights. But they outlined rules in the Constitution that allowed the members of each house to set rules for their members and punish the members who break those rules. There are systems in place to prevent corruption among our directly elected representatives. They are subject to both the rules of membership of their respective houses, and the laws of the land that are enforced by the executive branch and under the jurisdiction of the courts. It is not a perfect system but, when used correctly, it is an effective system.  The voters and citizens of the United States are best served by making sure that our elected representatives follow the rules already set forth, and most of all by making sure that the most qualified representatives are sent to Washington every two and six years. Term limits for those representatives would merely hobble the voters ability to make those decisions.

The other thing term limits won’t do is protect the rest of the nation from representatives from districts like San Francisco, and states like Nevada. Pelosi and Reid are quite illustrative of the people they represent. If they were forced out by term limits, the voters from those districts would send someone with another face, with another name, but with the same radical ideologies to serve in their place.

We don’t have a right to be protected from the will of an individual district or state, except as already outlined by the Constitution, and we don’t have the right to tell the people of other districts and states who they can and can’t have as their elected representatives. It is much more important, if you ask me, that we find a way to protect the rights of individual states from the will of the federal government. That is where the real battle is.