When in the Course of Human Events...

Time for a Second American Revolution?

There was something quite different about the words our nation's forefathers penned at the founding and early days of the republic. These words carried a weight and commitment that has not been seen in anything drafted by the legislature over the past several generations. These men put their own lives and fortunes at stake, right alongside those of the families that made up this fledgling nation. Their modern contemporaries, it seems, stake only our lives and fortunes and future, risking little of their own.  The greatest risk they ever seem willing to make, if ever, is to take a stand on a point that could negatively impact re-election to their seat or election to a more powerful one. Where have all the statesmen gone?

I'm sure that many of the men and women who supposedly represent us in Washington embarked upon their political careers with great aspirations and the best of intentions. However, they easily become corrupted by the political machine; back door deals, the influence of lobbyists, selling their souls to the devil, etc. Even when they maintain the values that helped get them elected, they are often marginalized and rendered ineffective. These men and women cave to pressures that very few could withstand; sometimes, it is really hard to blame them. We have the best system of government in the world, but long-term, persistent corruption has resulted in a poor application of the system. It has suffered a fatal error and, for lack of a better remedy, needs a hard reboot.

We the People are also heavily to blame. We cannot simply point our collective finger at those we have elected, because after all, we elected them. Sure, we can try to blame it on the poorly-understood finer points of how we elect our representatives and executive in a republic, referring to mechanisms such as the primaries and the electoral college as "asinine" or "outdated," all the while not realizing how it all is supposed to work. It is easy to blame things we don't understand. It makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck when I hear things uttered like, "This is supposed to be a Democracy," or "How can he be president when he didn't win the popular vote?"

It is time for a Second American Revolution. Those are dangerous words; such words were dangerous in 1776 and they remain so today. Talk of revolution can quickly throw one to the fringe, in the realm of treasonous nutjobs, or get you on half a dozen government watch lists. As such, we must be prudent in our use of such a weighty term, especially if we mean it with the same degree of commitment as our founding fathers did. I think we can be committed, yet not require a call to arms to effect the necessary change; I think we can be effective, without advocating the overthrow of our present system of government. As previously stated, we have the best system in the world, but the players aren't playing by the rules, the officials have been corrupted, and we've essentially all forgotten how to play the game. One way or another, things are going to change, at someone's hands, things are going to change; it can better our situation or we can botch it up and send us further down the path toward tyranny. This Second American Revolution need not be a violent overthrow; this next revolution must be one of education in the founding principles of the republic and intentional, consistent action to facilitate the election of a new generation of principled leadership, beginning with the US House of Representatives.

The US House of Representatives? Yes.

Many overlook the potential of using the US House of Representatives as a lynchpin in taking back control of the federal government. The Constitution grants the House several exclusive powers: the power to initiate revenue bills, to impeach officials, and to elect the President in the case of an electoral college deadlock. Probably the most important of these is the control over revenue; they hold the authority to decide whether or not to spend our money. The founders understood that having control over spending carries the potential of quickly leading to corruption. As such, we have the opportunity to replace our representatives in the House every two years, allowing us to hold them more accountable for their votes concerning funding things with taxpayer money. If the federal government wants to spend our money, it must first be authorized by the House.  The Senate can only vote up or down on the funding aspect, from what I understand.

What if, through public-awareness mechanisms like the Tea Party movement, we could re-introduce an understanding of how our government is supposed to actually function and advocate the election of representatives who will vote to only approve funding for matters directly related to the enumerated powers of the federal government.  This has the potential to effectively stop massive, unconstitutional programs (like Obamacare) by refusing to spend any money on the administration of the program. Measures such as these, combined with the passage of an Enumerated Powers Act (requiring all bills introduced in Congress to include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which each bill is being enacted) could go a long way toward restoring some order and restraint on this runaway freight train that is hauling our money into a black hole, along with our liberty. Perhaps this is an over-simplified and sophomoric perspective, which I'm sure someone will point out to me if it is, but couldn't that start the ball rolling in the right direction?

No matter how you look at it, a revolution of some kind is on the horizon. We can make it happen or we can let it happen, but it's going to happen. Let's be on the proper side of this battle and fight it using the rule of law and light of day to expose the things that need to be fixed. If we don't, things are going to get really messy. We've only gotten a little taste of it so far. Let's make our Declaration this November and draw that line in the sand.

So, revolution anyone?


© the stiff lizard

Burn Notice

An Act of Ignorance

I have my own copy of the Qur'an (text and commentary) with a side-by-side English translation. It was given to me by a Palestinian woman that I engaged in a reasonable discussion concerning the history of The Holy Land. We didn't agree on everything, but she was gracious and knew how to pleasantly disagree. I'm pretty sure she is not a terrorist. I have read most, if not all, of the book (the translated parts anyway) and I don't have any intention of burning it.

I keep this copy of the Qur'an on my bookshelf, as a reference. The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Jehovah's Witnesses' version of the bible), the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price are keeping it company. I don't need a copy of the Tanakh, because I pretty much have that (albeit ordered differently) in my regular ol' Bible translations, before the Jesus sequel. I am not a Muslim; I am not a JW, LDS, or of Jewish decent. I do not claim a particular Christian denomination either; I simply try to follow Jesus (the Christ, not the landscaper).

I possess, and have mostly read, these books and many others in a continuous pursuit to better understand my fellow man.  What we each individually believe about God and our place in His creation, like it or not, plays a vital part in who we are and what makes us tick. Our religion, spirituality, or whatever you want to call it, is not the only element that forms our convictions and world-view, so this is obviously only one very enlightening piece of the puzzle. This is not intended to be a comparative religion essay, so let's leave it at that.

People will often cite "deeply-held religious beliefs" as a basis for irrational and bigoted behavior.  A problem with deeply-held religious beliefs is that nutjobs have a lot of them that aren't taught as part of the faiths that they claim to follow.  Errant beliefs and cultist belief systems inevitably arise when there is a narrow focus on the importance of one or a few elements of a religious teaching, combined with the dismissal of balancing teachings within the same faith. I hypothesize that this may be part of the case with Dove World Outreach Center's Pastor Terry Jones (not to be confused with the brilliantly funny Terry Jones of Monty Python fame).

Pastor Jones claims that he and his congregation (of about 30 people, from what I understand) have prayed about it and feel convicted that 'honoring' those killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, through the public burning of up to 200 copies of the Qur'an, is the right thing to do. However, when interviewed by one of the faces on CNN the other night, Jones was unable to name even one of the victims killed in the 9/11 attacks.  Jones appears to me to be little more than a hate-monger who likes media attention; correction, a hate-monger with deeply-held religious beliefs. This is not the first asinine stunt that he's pulled; google him and find out for yourself.

The media attention surrounding this impending book burning, stirs the emotions of many, but the minds of few.  Milton once wrote, "who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills Reason itself, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye."

It doesn't really matter whether you believe the principles taught in the Qur'an are valid or not, or whether 'Islam is of the devil' as Jones likes to put on billboards and children's tee shirts. Understanding the teachings of the Qur'an can help one to better understand his Muslim neighbor and a culture that would otherwise be quite alien. As such, the book has value. Publicly burning it achieves nothing positive; it does not silence the message; it does not stop the spread of Islam; it does not eradicate the teachings from existence. It does however, create converts - to radical Islam.  People like Pastor Jones are the Islamic terrorists' greatest recruiting tools; or maybe they're just tools, period.

I recently wrote that a man ought not to consume with flame any book that he has not first consumed with his mind; it is an act of ignorance that lacks a reasonable defense. Those words came to me about 24 hours ago, when I couldn't sleep, and I thought that I should share them. It prompted some interesting dialog, both through facebook and by email. The thought was prompted by the idea of Jones's old-fashioned Nazi-esque book burning, but I believe it in a much larger sense. To intentionally defile or desecrate something, believing it to be wrong but having no understanding of it, is an act of bigotry and ignorance, in my humble opinion. I think that to be intellectually qualified to burn a book, one must read it from cover to cover, understand the content, and conclude that it has no value. If you can honestly do that, break out the Kingsford, baby, and have yourself a time. Otherwise, it is a narrow-minded and bigoted act.  That is not to say that you don't have the constitutional right to do it though.

You see, there is a distinction that gets lost in so many of the debates about this kind of stuff. Just because you may have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is right to do it; they are two separate arguments that must not be confused. Here in the States, we have the constitutional right to be as ignorant and backwards as we choose to be, and to do it publicly if we so desire. Pastor Jones appears to be exercising that right to its fullest. I don't think this episode will be the last that we hear of him or his merry band of imbeciles. I just hope that no one gets hurt in the process and that we all learn something from it.  It's a bit unrealistic but heck, I can dream, right?


© the stiff lizard

Plugging the Holes

A follow up to "In the Name of Justice"

I can always count on my buddy Q to keep me honest.  One of the things I value so much about my friendship with him, and some of my other long-time friends (Chris, Roger, Aaron... you guys know who you are), is that we can disagree (sometimes without actually disagreeing, ironically) and not get emotional about it.  We often have lively debates, get frustrated with one another, take the gloves off and let the fur fly, but in the end we are all better for the experience.  Whatever the initial debate, we rarely remain smugly unchanged by the dialog, but rather expand the depth of our understanding and maybe look at something from a perspective not previously considered.  I always try to ask myself, while gritting my teeth, "What can I learn from this?"

I am frequently criticized by friends and colleagues about my writing.  Not that it is rife with errors in grammar or spelling, but rather that I often write too much on a topic out of the compulsive need to cover every base.  This often results in an absurdly long narrative that most people would never read.  I have heard it said that a paper should be like a mini skirt: long enough to cover everything, but short enough to keep it interesting.  In an effort to keep my blog posts relatively concise, at least in this recent instance, I have left a fair amount of the proverbial beaver showing.

As I read Q's response, I found myself scratching my head and asking, "Where did I write that?  Did I even address that point?  Where did that come from?"

Maybe I'm way off base (it's happened before) but it looks to me like more was read from between the lines than from the lines themselves.  Assumptions have been made that appear, at least to me, to be incongruent with what I have stated.  I will do my best to recap my points, plugging the holes that I apparently left open for interpretation previously.

Simplified recap:

• There's a lot of talk going on about Maryland's wiretap and electronic surveillance laws, prompted by a recent case.  Many people who are commenting on it don't even know what the law states (no comment by me agreeing or disagreeing with the law).

• I don't like it when the government abuses its power.

• Even though the law gives police some flexibility in certain circumstances, it is wrong to take practices beyond that, even when the police think it's for a good reason.

   (are we in disagreement about anything significant yet?)

• CATO put out a news video clip and written commentary about a recent incident.

• I like CATO; they are the good guys.

• A lot of people's comments on the story lacked an understanding of existing Maryland law (again, no comment by me agreeing or disagreeing with the law).

• I get frustrated when people make statements about what the law is when they don't know what the law is.

   (again, are we in disagreement about anything significant yet?)

•  The police occasionally abuse their authority.

• Laws should be periodically reviewed and revised.

• It probably wasn't right to seize that dude's stuff and pursue a wiretapping case against him.

• I hope that a court ruling will facilitate changes to the law that make it fair to the people, but have my doubts that will be the actual outcome.

   (we're still all in agreement so far, right?)

   I think we split in opinion at this point...

• From what little bit of video I've had the opportunity to see, I don't think the trooper did anything seriously wrong, procedurally (this is where I should have expounded quite a bit but didn't; many assumptions appear to have been made because of this).

   (take a breath and let that last point pass until we can come back to it...)

•  We should always be a little distrustful and suspicious of governmental authority.

• Just because the police act like they have the authority to do something doesn't mean that they actually do.

• Some cops don't care about the Constitution, but there are mechanisms to deal with that (should have expounded here again; blanks were filled in with assumptions instead).

• People generally only want the police to be able to do something to OTHER people, not them.

   (are we back on something close to the same page for at least these points?)

    I think we split in opinion again at this point...

• From what little bit of video I've had the opportunity to see, I don't think the trooper did anything seriously wrong, procedurally (this is where I should have expounded quite a bit again, but didn't).

    I think we're back together again with this point...

• Police in Maryland aren't usually thinking about the potential of citizens being lawfully armed, because Maryland doesn't like to recognize the 2nd Amendment (I imply that this is bad).

• It's a good thing for the trooper that the guy wasn't lawfully armed, because the guy might have been justified in shooting the plain-clothes trooper if he thought he was being attacked.

    We may split again here...

• I go on about how the motorcycle guy did a bunch of stupid stuff (but never imply that it justifies anything more than traffic charges).

• The motorcycle guy should have done a little homework before putting the video on youtube.

• Circumstances indicate that the motorcycle guy may have committed a violation of existing law by putting the AUDIO recording on the internet, but opined that the search warrant and detention weren't justified, had appropriate discretion been exercised by the police (again, not sure how we differ in opinion on this point).

• I go on to lament that people don't understand the difference between people recording the government and the government recording the people (a point which was apparently miscommunicated, misunderstood, or both).

• Reiterate that people ought to do a little homework before speaking on law they have not read (not that their right to express the opinion should be abridged, just that you can make a better argument when informed).

• Express feeling puzzled because I seem to disagree on stuff with some peeps that I normally agree with on a lot of other stuff (mainly because they didn't seem to know the applicable law).

• State that we all have something to learn from this whole thing, but am pessimistic that anyone actually will.

 I think that's about it.

Before going into addressing every statement and objection raised by Q, let's reflect for a minute on what the matters are where we actually disagree, having reviewed this simplified recap.  If I am correct, the main discussion points left are the reasonableness or unreasonableness of force used to affect the stop and whether the current law is a just one.  These were never addressed in my original post, so we can deal with them in the next one.

Status check: where are we on the other stuff?

© the stiff lizard

In the Name of Justice

If you haven't heard about this yet, maybe you will when you come out of your cave.  There is a lot of controversial discussion taking place concerning "wiretapping" laws in Maryland and the use of contemporary technology by both citizens and law enforcement.  Some of this discussion, at least what I have read online, has been among people who are often misinformed about the law and legally acceptable law enforcement procedures.  Anyone who has known me for more than five minutes is acutely aware of the disdain I hold for any abuse of power by the state, particularly when it comes to abridging the personal, constitutionally-protected, liberties of the governed.  However, law enforcement professionals enjoy a limited and reasonable degree of immunity for certain acts, when performed in good faith and in pursuit of lawful objectives.  I do not, in any way, intend such a statement to condone an attitude (by the citizenry or the state) that law enforcement should have a carte blanche, end-justifies-the-means, approach to performing their duties.

My early morning tirade is brought to you courtesy of the CATO Institute, this link featuring a news video that was recently posted on facebook and the subsequent comments by CATO's facebook fans.  Now let me be clear, lest you misunderstand my point (as people often do), I am not busting on the CATO Institute.  I have a great deal of respect for the folks at CATO and count myself among their fans.  They bring many matters concerning individual liberty to light for discussion and debate; we need much more of that.

My frustration is multifaceted.  People generally have very little knowledge of the laws that affect them; people who seem to know all about their rights have very little concern for their associated responsibilities; a large number of people who have never read a law fancy themselves to be legal experts when it becomes a news topic; the assumption seems to automatically be that the police are always corrupt.  I will not get into a dissertation on each of these individual points, which I'm sure relieves you to some degree.

Are there occasional abuses of power by the police?  Yes.

Do laws need to be periodically reviewed and revised?  Absolutely.

Was it right to seize this guy's camera, computers and other equipment in furtherance of a felony wiretapping case?  Probably not.

Will a court ruling favorably clarify applicable legislation or prompt needed revision of current law?  I hope so, but am skeptical.

Did the State Trooper, based solely upon the video to which we have seen, do anything procedurally wrong during the stop?  I don't think so.

We are right to always be a little suspicious and distrustful of the state because, let's face it, acting under color of law isn't always the same as acting in accordance with law.  Sure, there are police officers who play fast and loose with the Constitution, as well as with departmental policies and procedures.  There are mechanisms of accountability in place to deal with these matters; some agencies manage this better than others.  The bottom line is that there are a far greater number of good cops out there, doing what they are supposed to do, than there are shady ones.  Everyone seems to think that the police should be nice to everybody, always exercise a superhuman degree of judgment and restraint, instinctively know what the person they're dealing with is thinking and feeling and be sensitive to that and never make a mistake.  However, when someone's breaking into your house at night, everyone expects the cop who shows up to be Billy Badass, ready to choke out the bad guy or put a bullet in his brainpan.  To borrow an analogy from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, the sheep would prefer that the sheepdog be defanged; that is until a wolf shows up near the flock.

The ONLY criticism I can make of the State Trooper's action during the stop was that he did not immediately identify himself as a police officer (he took an *insert sarcastic tone here* astounding five seconds to do so).  This oversight is of greater risk to the trooper than to the citizen, because a lawfully armed citizen may have been well within his rights to shoot, if believing himself to be in fear of imminent harm.  Since the People's Republic of Maryland hasn't recognized the 2nd Amendment for so long though, lawfully armed citizens aren't typically a big concern for the police.  I'd be willing to bet that an officer in Arizona might not make the same mistake.

The motorcyclist (Anthony Graber) however, must have had a big ol' bowl of stupid for breakfast that day.  Graber was riding a sport bike like an idiot, speeding and pulling wheelies in traffic, while on one of the most heavily traveled interstates in the area (judgment lapse number one).  Graber was using a helmet mounted camera to record his antics and share them with his future organ donor friends.  Then the inevitable happened; a State Trooper observed the misbehavior and a stop ensued.  Without going fully into the details of the stop (which you can find just about anywhere now), Graber did not draw attention to any of the officers that the whole event was being recorded on his helmet camera.  This is understandable, because he probably didn't know that it's unlawful to make an AUDIO recording of a conversation in Maryland, without at least informing all parties that they are being recorded.  The debate over the legitimacy of that law is another matter.  The VIDEO recording is fair game; it was in full view of the public, with no reasonable expectation of privacy.  Anyway, numb nuts gets his ticket and is released.  He goes home and puts the video (including the audio) on youtube (judgment lapse number two).  How could he possibly think that would turn out well for anybody?

You can't convince me, even for a second, that at some point between the event and posting the recording on youtube, it never crossed Graber's mind that what he was doing might just be illegal, or at the very least unwise.  Had Graber consulted with someone, or heaven forbid looked it up himself (my quick google search revealed this relevant information), he would have found that posting the video without the audio recording probably wouldn't have caused him the legal trouble he is now experiencing.  In my humble opinion however, I don't think it was wise to pursue a search warrant and charges against Graber.  By the letter of the law, yes it was a crime.  But how does the saying go, "discretion is the better part of valor," right?

So this video clip and commentary from CATO gets posted on facebook.  People begin to chime in about how corrupt the police are and how unfair it is that police can record you using dash cams, but it's a crime for citizens to do the same.  Well, first of all, it's not the same; second of all, cupcake, life ain't fair; third, think (and maybe research a little) before joining in the "f*ck the police" mantra.  Even after entering what I believed to be an educational comment on the matter, no one read it but rather they continued, in unimpeded lemming fashion, to voice their righteous outrage.  It's a strange and uneasy experience to be so agitated by people with whose opinions I often concur.

Anyway, there are lessons to be learned on all sides from this.  Will the right lessons be learned by the right parties?  To quote my Magic 8-Ball, "Outlook not so good."

© the stiff lizard

Noncensus

Bear with me on this, because I'm going to ramble a bit.  A postcard reminder from the Census Bureau was delivered to my house today.  The postcard is dated March 22, 2010, and advises that if I haven't already responded to the census questionnaire, I need to do so as soon as possible.  Well, the actual census survey inquires about people residing at my address on April 1, 2010.  It seems rather silly to chastise me for failing to report a condition that will not transpire for another week and a half.  Perhaps they are anticipating a peaceful act of civil disobedience on my part and felt it necessary to reiterate to me that, "Your response to the U.S. Census Bureau is required by law."

Yes, I know; Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States, in regards to the composition of the House of Representatives, states:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three."

I got a personal visit about a year and a half ago, with several follow up phone calls, as part of the Census Bureau's 2008 American Community Survey (ACS).  I was basically cooperative, but declined to answer a number of questions that I deemed beyond the scope of governmental authority to ask.  Eventually, I had to block the phone number.  Should that ever be necessary?

The problem, as I see it, is that under the right set of circumstances the Census Bureau could become our worst nightmare.  In fact, it became so for some people in our relatively recent history.  Data from the 1940 Census was used to identify Japanese, Italian and German Americans for internment during World War II.  Beyond providing geographic information to the War Department, the Census Bureau released a wealth of personal information to the Treasury Department on Japanese Americans, in response to an "unspecified threat" against President Roosevelt in 1943.

While the Census Bureau assures us that Title 13 requires them to keep our information strictly confidential, I hold that assurance to be highly suspect.  Of course, the release of  "strictly confidential" data was perfectly legal during World War II, under the Second War Powers Act, and more recently in 2001 and 2003 under the terms of the Patriot Act (extended by the Obama administration) when the Census Bureau turned over information collected on Americans of Arab decent to the Department of Homeland Security, these are not the types of exceptions that the Bureau likes to publicize.

In preparation for the 2010 Census, nearly 150,000 people were tasked with collecting GPS coordinates for the front door of every household in the nation.  If that doesn't make you uncomfortable, I don't know what would.  This kind of information sure would simplify locating (and rounding up) anyone who might pose an "unspecified threat" to national security.  Think, for a minute, about the fact that the terrorist watch list has exceeded one million.  Exactly what would the Obama administration consider to be a "terrorist" these days anyway? 

As far as I'm concerned, "enumeration" doesn't mean anything more than a head count, so that's all they'll be getting from me.  I'm even sealing the envelope with a damp sponge rather than giving them a DNA sample.  Okay, maybe that's a little too much, but you get my point.  Hey, if we're not willing to take a stand against this little bit of tyranny, what will we do when faced with tyranny's soldiers?


© the stiff lizard

Party over here? Party over there?

This is being reposted from one of my facebook notes. 

As a number of my close friends know, I have been agonizing over the prospect of leaving the Republican Party. I have been a registered Republican for nearly 24 years. As I have become more libertarian in philosophy over the years, I considered changing to Independent a few times but have never really been able to bring myself to do it. I grew up rooting for Ronald Reagan in 1980 (at 13 years old) and can even remember hoping that Gerald Ford would beat Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election, despite my parents being Democrats at the time. With such a lifelong attachment to the Republican Party, I just can’t see changing now. After a great deal of reflection, I believe that the best way to effect positive change for the party is from within.

I see us as being faced with a unique opportunity to capitalize upon the frustration of the governed with our elected officials. In the coming few years, I believe that there will be a small window of opportunity for us to begin returning America to the Republic our forefathers intended. If we as a people fail to seize this fleeting chance, I fear that we will slip further toward the oligarchy and state-run economy that we are rapidly becoming.

We must restore the Constitution to its proper place in our government and economy. Even though there are quite noble intentions among less mainstream parties, I fear that one will not emerge with sufficient political capital to effect the change that is needed in the time that we have left. The mainstream parties, in my opinion, harbor the only feasible option for bringing forth principled leadership that is also credible. I believe that I will be remaining a Republican.

It is difficult for me to be this passionate about our country, yet feel so helpless to effect any real change. I am hoping that by learning more through some of the educational opportunities I am currently pursuing, I may be able to help support those who are in the position to effect the kind of change I envision.

© the stiff lizard

Smoke and Mirrors

They say that seeing is believing.  The question is, how far do you look before you believe?

As long as we remain convinced that we are lacking a heart, or a brain, or courage, we are easily manipulated by those who play on our fears and our deep-seated desires.  We are swindled into believing that we do not have the ability to make our own life decisions and to choose our own destiny.  We must seek the wisdom and power of The Wizard, because over time we, as a people, have allowed Washington to abrogate our liberty.  We, collectively, either lack the courage to look behind the curtain, or are perfectly content to buy the illusion.

I'm not sure when this trend first began, but it's certainly no recent development.  Since the time our republic was founded, there have been concerns about the growing scope of power that is wielded by our federal government.  Perhaps the ratification of the Tenth Amendment (December 15, 1791) was believed, at the time, to be a bright-line rule that would endure through the ages.  However by 1941, perhaps well before, the highest court in the land referred to the Tenth Amendment as a "truism" in the United States v. Darby Lumber Co. decision.  Lest one not recognize the gravity of such a reference, consider the definition of a truism (I state this, not to be condescending, but to drive a point home):

"Truism: an undoubted or self-evident truth; especially : one too obvious for mention"

Self-evident truth?  Absolutely.  Too obvious to mention?  Give me a break.  Why would our founders choose to make the Tenth Amendment a statement that is too obvious to mention?  How about that whole "We hold these truths to be self-evident" thing in the Declaration of Independence?  Was that also too obvious to mention?  I think not.  What we trivialize soon becomes irrelevant.

Over time, charismatic leaders, in whom we want to believe and trust, have sold us an illusion.  Some have truly believed that the change they championed was for the good of the people, the country, and in the furtherance of freedom.  Others have not.  When will we, like Orwell's Boxer, be unwittingly carted off to the knacker's?

In my lifetime, I have seen the gradual erosion of liberty facilitated by a litany of "wars" on the evil du jour and manufactured crises that threaten to destroy the planet or cause our civilization to crumble if we don't act now.  By the way, "act now" is the code phrase for buying the show; sitting back and watching the third act of our collective tragedy, where the pigs move into the farm house and anyone who challenges or disagrees with them mysteriously disappears.

The lie we are being sold today is nothing but a refined version of the one we bought yesterday.  You had a heart, a brain, and courage all along; use them.  Before you decide that seeing is believing, check behind the curtain.

© the stiff lizard

What's in a name?

If you have not already asked, you may be tempted to do so. Why would someone choose a name like "stiff lizard" for a blog and what is it supposed to mean?

Well, not everything has a rational explanation. When I chose the name, it had no real connection to anything, no hidden meaning, no inside joke.

I read that you should name your blog something that people will remember. Many years ago, when I was young and had hair growing in all the right places, a friend of mine commented that if we ever had a band we should call it "Stiff Lizard." He was eccentric too.

As far as I know, we never started that band. However, the name stuck in my memory for more than 20 years, so I figure it ought to be easy to remember. The other recommendation was to make sure the name is easy to spell. I think I have that covered too.

In many ways I am an old fashioned guy, who was probably born 20 to 40 years too late for my own good. Even though women and men are equals, I think a man should hold the door for a lady, walk on the street side of the sidewalk and pick up the check on a date. I didn't want to go to school to learn a specialized profession or to get a good job; I wanted to learn. I don't want to be the best at any one thing; I'd rather be pretty damned good at a lot of stuff.

Some people may call me a dinosaur. Last time I checked, they were all dead; a bunch of stiff lizards. Maybe there is a connection.

© the stiff lizard

On Joe Stack...

The following is an edited compilation of my responses to a related topic on facebook:

I just read Joe Stack's "manifesto" yesterday and commented on a related article. He has a few salient points, but I think the execution of his message, unfortunately, does a disservice to those of us who truly hold libertarian ideals.

While I certainly am a believer in laying down one's own life for the preservation of freedom and individual liberty, IMHO this was not only a poor execution of that principle, but also more of an attempt to settle a grudge than anything that remotely approaches a noble act.   I hate to say this about someone who gave his life for something he believed in (although clearly the cheese has slid off his cracker), but he's given the rest of us who possess strong libertarian convictions a bad name.

I suppose his action ought to, technically, be considered an act of terrorism.  However to officially do so, may lessen the distaste that the "powers that be" feel we should have against those who we more "traditionally" choose to classify as terrorists.  Not that I am a terrorist sympathizer or anything, it's just that in the context of history there is a very fine line between those who are heralded as patriots and those who are condemned as terrorists.  I hope this comment doesn't put me back on the watch list. ;)

"Terrorism: the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

All acts of terrorism are criminal; not all crimes are acts of terrorism. Were Joe Stack's actions those of a revolutionary, as opposed to those of a terrorist?

While the term "revolutionary" is, arguably, a bit more difficult to define, the connotation seems to be that a revolutionary act impacts society, or some aspect of human behavior, in a sudden or major way.  While this may have been one of Joesph Stack's intentions, I think that his act did more harm to the cause than good.  It provides yet another example to which people can point and classify those who defend liberty as nut jobs and extremists, without affecting any measurable progress toward restoring individual liberty.

I do not advocate violence or criminal acts to accomplish noble goals, however I do hold the founding principles outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as having far more authority than what Congress has cranked out over the past 200 years (I am obligated to make the disclaimer that "I do not advocate violence or criminal acts..." for the same reasons that the manufacturer of a Superman Halloween costume must print "cape does not enable user to fly" on its box).  The question is, exactly what do we have to do, and what means are acceptable, to accomplish our goals of setting our nation back upon the intended path of its founders?

If we could restore the Constitution to its proper place of authority, and oust all those who refuse to acknowledge such authority, I think we would be a long way toward fixing this mess.  We don't have a bad system of government; we have a bad application of the system.  We have taken that which is good, and bent it to the will of the corrupt.  It is time to take it back.

© the stiff lizard