Promoting the Narrative

The elites in government, politics and media appear to have a very low opinion of the people of our nation. They may refer to us as lemmings, sheeple or other less flattering terms. They view us a collection of unthinking mobs that are one misstep away from neanderthalism. We are the drones, the worker bees and the “bots” of the American political landscape. Some of us are characterized as knuckle dragging right wing extremist weirdoes. If they thought that we thought, they would accuse us of brain-dead group thought. But they don’t think we think so they think that we are collectively and coincidentally stupid.

With advent of the Tea Party and related movements public awareness of government and political matters has increased dramatically. Distrust for the reigning political power elites has grown substantially as people become skeptical of their government and the media that reports about government action. To a lesser degree the citizens have become wary of the two primary parties….the Republicans and the Democrats. They have controlled national power for a century and half often appearing to act in collusion to deny the rights of people and their property while expanding the overarching role of government in the everyday lives of individuals. The “stupid” masses are catching on. They see the avarice and greed, the lust for power, and the disdain the power elite projects when toying with citizens’ lives. They get it.

The people who pay the taxes and do the heavy lifting in the nation are beginning to understand who the true “sheeple” are….who it is that follows the herd mentality. Everyday citizens do not have “talking points” or “media narratives.” We see, we ponder and we react. Powerful elites react but often fail to see, and even more rarely ponder. Their behavior reminds me of that old joke….ready, shoot, aim. If you follow the political news as closely as I do for this column and the radio show, you will note that many career politicians and mass media types use similar descriptive phrasing. If they like the idea, it’s “innovative, creative or new.” If they find the idea repulsive, they call it “extreme, strange or controversial.” Objective observers and true journalists could escape the herd by using terms such as “unique, different or thought-provoking.” They do not, so they join the mass of other non-thinkers who condemn what they do not understand. Their lack of understanding springs from their dearth of curiosity, shortage of intellect and fear of being ostracized by the herd.

When discussing policies or other political personalities, if all the power elite and the media drones were in the same room, their repetitive mantras could be taken for chants. Same words, same inferences, same assumptions govern their public discourse. It’s as if all were reading from the same teleprompter. Their echoing is described as the “dominant narrative.” The view that all the ‘right” people accept as correct. Their approach is very similar to a group of pseudo-intellectuals who have all read a book review (but not the book) and sit around discussing the nuance of the plot and the author’s true intent. Their approach has no basis in reality, but it is tethered to the statements and pronouncements of others in their circle of uninformed jerks.

The members of the circle are aghast when someone deviates from the narrative. The heresy could topple their illogical house of unreasonable cards. They react, therefore, with passion and fury to denounce the violator of the silent compact to promote the dominant narrative. After all, lemmings do not enjoy an alternate route when racing toward the cliffs of delusionary self-destruction. The power elite and their tools the mass media operatives are somewhat flummoxed by the Tea Party/Patriot movement and Libertarians. The citizens study the Constitution of the United States, read legislative bills, and question candidates and proponents. They are skeptical of the dominant narrative. They seek alternate sources of information and confirmation. They ask troublesome questions and raise bothersome issues. While a “movement,” they are not a singular organization that can be dismissed or totally marginalized. And they (gasp, gasp) claim to want a smaller constitutional government that defends EVERYONE’S individual rights….not only those of the elite.

The elites and purveyors of the dominant narrative assume that a large nation of 310 million persons requires a massive number of laws to insure the social order and minimize chaos. Their response to the small-government proponents is to claim they are uninformed, unenlightened and unsophisticated. Any parent, group leader or organizational specialist can deflate the dominant narrative because larger more diverse groups require fewer rules to promote cohesion. A plethora of rules designed to address minor specific issues frustrate the larger group because broad applications are unworkable and often counterproductive. Frustrated individuals join with others with similar complaints and resist the arbitrary issuance and enforcement of arcane rules.

The slow-witted elites will someday discover that their dominant narrative is false….has always been false, and will cause them to be surprised when the people finally rise up and reject their paradigm. The people are discovering that the dominant narrative is fiction. The elites will learn that reality bites.

One final note: The dominant narrative is the enforcement arm of political correctness.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed., 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo.  www.wspd.com

Courting Disaster

Put a dress on a guy, and he goes crazy. No, I’m not discussing a drag queen. My observation is about judges. Before you begin sending me emails, I also have the same view of most female jurists. My complaint is not necessarily with the roles that judges play although I believe we have become much too litigious and reliant on court-administered remedies for every real or imaginary affront. No, my problem is with the Solomon-like attitudes assumed by so many of our jurists once they ascend to the seat behind the bar. The separation of powers as designed by the Framers has become a collection of fiefdoms within all three branches of government. The Executive and Congressional branches have justifiably been excoriated for their unwillingness to comply with their constitutional obligations. The Judiciary has encountered some criticism on a case-by-case basis, but overall the system and its execution appear to be seriously flawed.

With exception of the constitutionally mandated Supreme Court of the United States, all the other courts and judgeships are created by congressional action. One would assume that Congress has the power and the right to dissolve the power islands of the federal judiciary and begin anew. That appears to be the only viable remedy because of the lifetime appointments that federal judges enjoy. Congress, on the other hand, can be purged every two years though the sheeple do not seem inclined to do so, and the President can be dismissed after serving for four years and a maximum of eight years.

As a political realist, I understand that eliminating the federal court superstructure and starting over would require a willing super majority of Congress and probably a compliant Executive. In the divisive political environment of today (producers v. looters, taxpayers vs. non-payers) the likelihood of a super-majority is slim. So if the Congress or the President lacks the will or the power to restructure the federal court system, what solution(s) is available to “We the People?”

As many of you regular readers know, I am a “Nullifier.” I believe the state legislatures have the right ….and the duty to nullify any federal law, rule, mandate or regulation that violates the Constitution. In recent years most states have failed to exercise their nullification powers because many of the federal overreaches included strings and money. Also, state politicians on the whole love bigger government. It gives them more power and more goodies to distribute. Just because nullification by the states would be the correct strategy, are we limited to official state action when state politicians refuse to act on our behalf?  No, we are not. The individual action to “nullify” is civil disobedience. On the face of it the concept seems rather repugnant because those of us with the Western Tradition respect the “Rule of Law.” When the lawmakers and enforcers violate their trust and initiate laws that are clearly unconstitutional, we must pursue every avenue available to restrict them and negate the noxious legislation or rule. In addition when the enforcers distort a law or regulation to the point that it no longer resembles its original purpose or intent, citizens are duty-bound to resist and reject the government power grab.

The United States is a collection of fallible individuals. Some of them become Governors, Mayors or Presidents while others get elected to their respective legislative bodies. The judiciary and the bureaucracy are also comprised of flawed human beings. We often find in government, particularly big government, that distortion and error become compounded as they rely on precedent and shift from one aspect of government to another…..for example, an unconstitutional law passed by Congress is broadened and made even more egregious by the regulators.

Civil disobedience can be a risky strategy. Government has the power to force either compliance or prison for those who morally choose to challenge its abuses. If the local, state and federal politicians are reluctant or opposed to protecting citizens’ rights, the individual or small-group resistance may be the sole remaining option for those who chose to remain here. To circle back to our original discussion….the courts have limited resources to enforce their usurpations of the Constitution. They must rely primarily on the other branches to force compliance. The Executive and Legislative arms do not always agree with the Courts or may choose to ignore judicial rulings (see Ohio public school funding), therefore it seems that if some liberty-minded people are squeamish and hesitant about defying oppressive government, the courts and their nonsensical, unconstitutional rulings may be the weakest link in the system.

This piece is not a “call to arms.” It is, rather, a plea for thinking and considering what to do if the political efforts are unsuccessful. Personally, I do not plan to meekly accept statism and tyranny (more than we already have) without resisting. I shall resist alone if necessary. Any prudent patriot would have a “Plan B” if the original goal were not achieved.

Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. and Wed. 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

   

Strike Force

OK, here I go. I’m placing myself on every “watch list” imaginable. After reading about the draconian GOP budget which will leave us with a $26 trillion debt in ten more years and hearing so-called “good government” types praise it and Democrats sniveling as they condemn it, I have decided that we the people should go on strike. The Democrats will spend us into oblivion over night. They will promise the moon, and when the government is too broke to deliver, they will implement their perfect collective society. The Republicans cry about big unconstitutional government and whine about overspending, but lack the courage to take the REALLY BIG STEP to correct the lousy course we’re on. Nickel and dimeing is precisely what they propose…nickels and dimes when trillions are needed.

How do we implement a strike that would be effective? If you are one of those taxpayers who pays quarterly, and you have a payment due on the 18^th, escrow that puppy…apply for an extension…use every delaying tactic you can to gum up the works. After all, the politicians and bureaucrats have been gumming the works for years. Every time you get one of those “Alert” letters from either party or the AARP, write something educational on the form and send it back without money…WITHOUT MONEY. Make them pay the bulk return postage.

If any government agent from any government agency comes to your property for any reason, demand a warrant before you grant access. Community survey agents, health inspector, agriculture department…any government agent should present a warrant (remember, a warrant requires probable cause that a crime has been committed). Ninety per cent of government visits do not involve a crime, so the demand for the warrant will be like throwing sand in their gears.

Vote against every tax at every level. You might lament, “What about the schools?” Well, when the feds stop interfering in education (a state and local matter), and the federal Department of Education shrinks to nothing, then you and I might have the resources to help the local schools. Another option is to get the local school board to resist and prohibit ANY federal involvement in the school. It would be “nullification” on a mini scale.

The boneheads and clowns in government do not listen to us. They hear only that group of takers who want more from government…more from your sweat, your taxes. It’s time we stopped listening to them. Stop inviting them to your social affairs. Stop giving them free meals and places of honor. Treat them like the 3^rd century lepers they resemble. They ignore you, lie to you, or they say what they believe you want to hear, and then do as they please while mollifying the looters of the world. Banish them from your functions. They are unworthy of your consideration because it’s clear they truly do not value you or our country more than their own pathetic careers.

We see the disaster ahead as our nation, states and communities rush toward the precipice at break neck speed. We are horrified by what we observe, and yet, the politicians and bureaucrats are holding the throttle wide-open until the next election cycle…as they always have. Speaker Boehner, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Ryan…$400 billion per year is like peeing in a hurricane when the annual short fall is $1.65 trillion. Majority Leader Reid, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer…go home. You’ve done enough damage already. If you continue the destructive path you’re following, you should read some French history from the final decade of the 18^th century.

Can this little strike be effective? Probably not unless it goes viral. I am so darn frustrated with liberals, progressives, socialists, statists, moderates, neocons, conservatives…a pox on them all! All I want are patriots…patriots…patriots who will defend my personal liberty…my life, my labor and my property. What we have is a bunch of looters who want my labor, my property and want to control my life. Give me Liberty.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com     or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

  

Sedition Sentiment

So far in this series we’ve discussed various responses to an unconstitutional overreaching federal government. Tuesday’s column was about submission as a strategy. Wednesday we examined nullification as a means of counteracting big government, and yesterday we briefly reviewed secession as a means for thwarting an out-of-control federal monolith. Today, we take a look at sedition or resistance as a strategic vehicle for preserving individual liberty when confronted by an oppressive government. This is a difficult avenue to explore for a couple of reasons. One would pray that our situation doesn’t deteriorate to the point where sedition is necessary, and even with a successful outcome for the resisters, the tragedy of the process would be phenomenal.


Sedition is defined as an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government. Clearly by this definition, any seditious attempt to dislodge the federal government would be illegal or unlawful. Those who engage in the seditious activity would be subject to extremely harsh penalties. The moral justification for a citizen’s involvement and promotion of sedition is based on the premise that the federal government has exceeded its authority, exercises power beyond its mandate, and engages in practices and activities which are blatantly unconstitutional. In other words, if the government is illegitimate and operating illegally, then those who oppose it in the name of constitutional validity are functioning as lawful and legal enforcers of the Constitution. In the moral and philosophical universe the tables are reversed and the government and the resisters exchange places on the legitimacy scale. That’s the ideal. The reality is much different.

Over the years, film, television and literature have explored the nobility of a just resistance in the face of tyranny. (e.g. “Red Dawn.”). Generally the good guys win. Despite the evil government’s massive superiority in weaponry, personnel and power, the pure-of-heart remnant manages to prevail. That scenario is not real. Sedition and resistance are messy affairs. Former friends and family members will choose “security” rather than join the remnant of resistance. They may even report the resisters to the “authorities.” Trust will become a rare commodity. Fear of discovery will be a constant concern.

The fires of liberty will not be easily extinguished. While many will succumb to the power and illicit authority of the government, there will be those who yearn for freedom. They’ll have furtive encounters and obliquely test others as they seek new allies. Not all resisters will be militant warriors. Some will produce broadsides and pamphlets or sound the cry of liberty on pirate broadcast, hard-wired and satellite outlets. The huge government apparatus will be directed against the freedom fighters, and artificial crises will be generated to co-opt the people. The government will attempt to dam every rivulet of resistance and quell the flames of freedom. Because of its awesome power, and the fearful indifference of most citizens, the flame will be compromised. It will be smaller. The embers of liberty will not be extinguished however. People of faith, people of hope and people of strength will nurse the embers, and pray their prayers until the oppressive regime implodes. Liberty must prevail. For some generations it will be only in their hearts and in heaven. For others it will be a day-to-day effort to teach and inform their peers. Some generations may taste the fruits of freedom and flourish, but every generation will have those who cherish Liberty. The spark of liberty in the heart will not die.

Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Guns and Moses

This is not a retrospective on the life of Axel Rose although he may be nearly as old as Moses. This entry is an exploration of the necessity for an armed citizenry. In the perfect world there would be no need for citizens to bear weapons. Today’s world is not perfect, however, and members of our society should be armed for a number of reasons. Obviously, one of the primary reasons is for personal protection. The United States has become an increasingly dangerous place, and even our smaller communities have not escaped the turmoil. Although crime prevention is a component of police work, most often the law enforcement officers do not become involved until after a crime has been committed. Their efforts are primarily directed toward investigation and apprehension. It seems, therefore, a prudent move for a citizen to have the means for self-defense and self-preservation.


A second justification for a citizen’s possession of firearms is for sporting purposes and varmint control. Target shooting and hunting are noble, healthy pursuits. They are the types of activities that an entire family can enjoy. The varmint control element may not be a huge issue in many neighborhoods—one doesn’t find too many Norwegian rats in Scarsdale, but in my small patch of the country, we do encounter the occasional pest. Woodchucks (we call them groundhogs around here), raccoons (nasty critters when threatened), and the increasingly annoying coyote are all threats to livestock, pets, crops or gardens. These feral critters are often too wily for effective trapping, so a well-placed shotgun blast or rifle shot is usually an effective determent.

Resisting tyrannical government is a serious endeavor. One does not cavalierly initiate armed activity against the power structure of the nation. The Founders and Framers of our country anticipated that at some time in the future, the citizens would feel compelled to rise and resist an overreaching governmental apparatus. As Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.

The implication is that if the government becomes too big, too oppressive or too unresponsive, then the people must aggressively wrest the reins of power and self-determination from the entrenched power structure. The huge government entity will resist any attempt to contain it. Laws and regulations will be advanced that limit the ability of the people to assert their control over the leviathan. In June of 1788, George Mason prophetically identified a key element of government’s restrictive control.

“To disarm the people…. was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

Mason’s sentiment was further advanced by Patrick Henry:

O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone… Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation… inflicted by those who had no power at all?

The Founders and Framers, when considering additions to the Constitution that would protect individual God-given rights and secure ratification votes from some reluctant colonies, enshrined the individual right of the citizen to bear arms in the Second Amendment. Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court in the 2008 D.C vs. Heller decision upheld the historical understanding that the right to own and possess firearms is an individual one. That’s the good news. The alarming news is that the Court affirmed more than 220 years of common practice by a mere 5 to 4 vote! Our individual Second Amendment right is hanging by a thread even as our government becomes more oppressive and invasive.

So, why is the reference to Moses in the title of this piece? Our Judeo-Christian heritage informs us that if God is with you, then the size of your army or the power of your arsenal is incidental. David needed but a few smooth stones and a slingshot to vanquish the mightiest warrior of the Philistine nation whereupon their army surrendered. Samson slew a thousand of those pesky Philistines using the jawbone of an ass. I suspect that our country may have forfeited God’s blessing if we’ve ever had it. We cannot rely on His divine intervention to help us secure our liberty.

If the time should come that freedom-loving citizens are compelled to battle for their God-given liberties, then the right to bear arms is critical. Slinging stones and swinging jawbones will not achieve the objective. We must protect and defend our individual right to bear arms. Every branch of the federal government has, to some degree, undermined the Constitutional certainty that was understood at the founding. In many speeches I’ve advanced the notion of the “triad of liberty.” When we perceive that Government is exceeding its limits, we use the 1st Amendment to reason, to protest and to persuade. Our next remedy for relief is the 10th Amendment wherein our states resist the encroachment of the federal government that has run amok. Finally, we resist force with force by exercising our 2nd Amendment protections.

Asses’ jawbones do not contain enough firepower. They are readily available, though. You can find a career politician lurking around every corner.

Comments are welcome: earl4sos@gmail.com or cnpearl@woh.rr.com