In Perspective #3
In Perspective #3 In Perspective #3 Gary Hunt, Are you a "Patriot" or a
"patriot"? Since 1993, there has been a continual growth among those who have,
finally, begun to see that government has run amok. Though that growth had been steady, it
wavered from time to time. Regardless, its foundation was based upon the government
violating its contract – the Constitution. Whether the 2nd Amendment, or any other provision of the
document which created (and instituted the power of the people into an agency which was
intended to serve them), was violated, outrage, at least in the verbal form, was a
constant response to many dozens of actions by government in those ensuing 8 years. During two-hundred twenty-two years under that Constitution, there were
very few instances in which the Capitol, whether in New York, or Washington, D.C., needed
any protection from threats, either internal or external. Even through the two World Wars,
no extraordinary measures were necessary to protect the government of the only
self-governed country in the world. After all, all of its activities were fair and just.
It entered wars only of necessity, and, it allowed other nations to government themselves.
Only when a very direct action was taken against America were postures made of an
offensive nature. Those people who set themselves apart from the mainstream and the
politically correct begun identifying themselves as "Patriots" or
"Constitutionalists". They sought to observe the moral values of the Founders of
the nation, and government’s obedience to the written values and limitations of the
Constitution. The Constitution and the Bible became the main source of
"authority" for their outspoken criticism of government and governmental policy.
They were heard, quite often, saying that they stood behind their country and they
expressed their opposition to the One World Government that they perceived as the
objective of the politicians in power. These people set themselves apart, also, by understanding that "my
country, right or wrong" was not consistent with either the Constitution or the
principles of the Founders. They had, all too often, seen the government (country) make
decision that were quite contrary to what the written word of both Bible and Constitution
provided for. They had become used to the government’s redefining of words to achieve
an appearance of rightfulness to that which was, without doubt, wrong. Like the words of a sixties song, we might now wonder, though, "Where
have all the flowers gone?" It seems that on September 11, 2001, many who had, for so
long, espoused the "P" word as their banner had, as the government had done,
redefined the word to mean something that it doesn’t. It appears that they have,
instead, decided that George W. Bush’s definition of patriot is more suitable to them
than that which they had professed an allegiance to. As those who, in the recent past, professed to be Patriots, turn their
sights on ‘defending’ America, and bombing bin Ladin back to the stone age, they
also walk away from, and turn their back on that which they professed to so recently. Now, I’m sure that some will be slighted by what I have just said.
Heck, let’s be realistic! Some will damn me for what I have just said. But,
let’s look, before we condemn, at the reasoning for that statement: There are some principles in the documents previously mentioned that will
give us some guidance in making rational decisions consistent with what we claim to
believe. Regardless of whether we feel that we have been affronted by the attack on the
World Trade Center (and Pentagon), or not, that is the crux of the point of division
between Patriots and patriots. It is those principles that must be considered in
determining which of the two identities properly attributed each of us. Let’s begin with the targets that had been selected by whomever (yes,
I said whomever – but, we will visit that aspect, shortly). First, and most
significant, was the World Trade Center. Whether a symbol of American greatness (as much
of the press has attributed to these structures) or of one of the elements of world
governance, there is little doubt that the essence of the World Trade Centers and those
who peopled the structures, were elements of many of the aspects of the current government
(and course of the nation allowed and encouraged by the actions of government) that were
so soundly criticized by those who have, recently, removed themselves from the Patriot
community. After all, they have, from reasons unknown, become defensive over the attack
against what is probably the second most symbolic identifier of the New World Order that
was their enemy. The other target, the Pentagon, has been identified as the symbol of
American Military might since 1943. From its prestigious beginnings (the center for the
military command that defeated the aggressor enemy of World War II), it has, in the eyes
of many, declined in prestige as it became the symbol of an ever expanding colonial policy
adopted by the Government, shortly after that last Great War. It was the target of protest
during the Sixties, and was the symbol of the policy that cost 58,000 young American lives
in the goalless war known simply as "Vietnam". Ironically, the Pentagon is also symbolic of one of the more significant
breaches of that contract known as the Constitution (and one closely associated with the
entire concept of militia). Article I, Section 8, clause 12, authorizes Congress "To
raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer
Term than two Years", which, with the limitation on funding, makes very clear that
the Founders intention was to preclude the possibility that the government would create a
standing army (mentioned as a cause in the Declaration of Independence), as the British
had, which could be used to subjugate the people. Outrage over the use of military in Waco
is demonstrative of that concern. If the old concept of war, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend",
isn’t sufficient, let’s continue and look at other "wrongs" being
committed by the government: Though there have been many ‘reinterpretations’ of the
Constitution, the Patriot community recognized that the document is fluid ONLY to the
extent that a process was defined by which the Constitution could be amended. Lacking an
amendment, the Constitution MUST stand, as written, as the document that is "the
supreme Law of the Land". This being the case, whether a person is a citizen, or not;
whether he is in the United States, or not, the Constitution applies. After all, it is
"the chains that bind the government", not a grant from the government of
protection ONLY for those who are its citizens. So, let us begin by looking at what has been described as "the first
war of the twenty-first century". Is it really a war? The Constitution makes no
provision for "police actions", nor does it make provision for the United States
to use the military to make arrests. In fact, it pretty specifically precludes the use of
the military for purposes of justice – which is, exactly, what we are lead to believe
the goal of "Enduring Freedom" is. In the one instance, "War", only Congress can declare it into
existence. In the other, "Justice", an arrest made by warrant by presentment or
indictment by a grand jury. Yet, we are lead to believe that the President can bypass the
requirements of the Fifth Amendment and simply claim that he has proof of guilt. In fact,
his case is so week that he left the socialist, Tony Blair, to ‘present’ the
‘facts’ of the case to the world (The Case Against bin
Ladin). And, those ‘facts’ amount to a number of claims which, even if true,
would not, necessarily, place the blame on bin Ladin. Next, we can look at the broad brush by which the attacks on a large
amount of a sovereign nation are being made – with a nearly total disregard for human
life. By what authority can the government put people at risk of their lives simply
because they live in proximity to an alleged criminal? If we would not allow that practice
in our own country, then it would be disallowed because it would be a violation of the
Constitution. How, then, can the government presume an authority over the rest of the
world that it cannot, lawfully, presume in this country? What about the prohibition against "cruel and unusual
punishment" (Amendment VIII)? In an age where even the most humane method of
execution is argued as unconstitutional, we resort to bombing a country in a manner that
is disruptive to the lives of all who live in the capitol city of that country, as well as
many of the other cities within Afghanistan. Can we possibly conclude that the disruption
of the daily lives of the innocent, by ‘cruel and unusual’ means can be imposed
on others when they cannot be imposed upon our own people? The only possible argument to support the ‘right’ of government
to operate in this capacity is to acquiesce to the concept of a One World Government. For,
only by acceptance of this concept can we even begin to conceive that any government has
the right to dictate what another government can do, except, perhaps, in treaties of peace
– after a war (declared) is concluded. So, to those who remain true Patriots to the America that is our
birthright, you have made your posterity proud. To the remainder, those who have given in,
so easily, and succumbed to the activities and the enemy that you so despised, just a few
weeks ago, well, let us forget that you were our countrymen. Return to World Trade Center -- In
Perspective Got to WTC -- In Perspective #2
Outpost
of Freedom