M.O.W.C.A.

Hungary . . .

October, 1956

Are we really any different from them? We have it, they didn’t. I think they valued it more than we do.

A salute to those who fought in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956

After all, they died for it.

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” — Winston Churchill

. . . and what is our excuse now?

Mind you, I like winning just as much as the next guy. However, victory has its own pitfalls, especially when it comes in the midst of a larger battle and yet larger war. It is these pitfalls that are the problem. Now, not to be negative or just for sheer meanness sake do I state this. Neither do I want to deprive anyone of the sweetness of winning, especially since the battle was uphill all the way. BUT, there are some things to be very aware of, and they ought to temper any victory gained:

1. It is the tendency of man to think that Victory means an end of fighting and struggle. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN ANY SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION.

2. It is the tendency of man to believe that a defeated enemy is an enemy that will give up fighting for their cause.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN ANY SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION.

3. It is the tendency of man to believe that victory means carefree celebration.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN ANY SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION.

4. It is the tendency of man to believe that victory secures peace for himself and his children.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN ANY SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION.

Why? Because your enemy is no different from you. Against all odds you fight, and if it is generational, you pass it to your children to fight just as you did, until victory is secured. But that means your enemy is now in the position you were in. Do you somehow believe that they are any different from you? Just because you fought and reversed the roles, does that mean they will stop fighting to reverse the roles yet again?

No, whatever drove you, also drives them. Moreover, they will take advantage of the “letdown” that happens after victory to gather their remaining strength and take their next course of action.

Sadly, far to many victors sow the seeds of their eventual defeat in the events following their victory.

We ought to be wiser than that . . .

The following are the applicable portion of the Docket Report and attendant files. There are two PDF files. I will comment tomorrow.

We would do well to consider the import and full meaning behind the surprised statement of Julius Caesar in Shakespeare’s play mere moments before his death. There is an awful lot of meaning packed into those three words. Primarily, the mind focuses on betrayal, but that would be to miss the deeper meaning behind the event itself.

Though it is not known what Julius actually stated before he died, what is known is that the event which occurred a bit over two millennia ago speaks to a truism about power, and where anyone’s actual power on this earth comes from. At one point Julius had at his disposal the resources of the entire Roman Empire. Along with that he could, at his whim, call forth any number of individuals in various positions of power throughout the Empire, and have them do his bidding. It was an envied position, but a rather dangerous one.

It was dangerous because of the mode of Julius’ acquisition of power. It was not legitimate and done by the application of force. Hence, whatever legal protection Julius might have enjoyed, he had destroyed by his own behavior. Nonetheless, for a time, all those under him were willing, for various and sundry reasons, to follow Julius, lending support as he required it. It was a heady position to occupy, much like the positions enjoyed by some in government today. After all, when there is no real accountability, who is to complain about what you do, especially when those subordinate to you do as you require without murmur or question.

But something went wrong in the days, weeks, and months before the demise of Julius. That something was unthinkable to Caesar. After all, he had loyal friends who would follow his orders and let him know if things were amiss. Moreover, there were many others who followed the law as it was popularly understood, and would do nothing against Julius, he being the Emperor and the source of all power — or so it seemed.

However, what began as mere disagreement and disapproval grew and became something far more dangerous to Julius. As so often is the case, those who are unhappy find others who are in a similar state and of like mind, and begin assessing their prospects. And as it is in this world, when one reaches the peak, there is nowhere to go but down. But when one is not yet there, going up is merely a matter of the will and means to do so. Julius, it seems, had only one direction to go. . .

There is a point in which support, and thus power, which is the ability to control individuals and events, is at a maximum for anyone in a position of power. Unfortunately for Julius, that maximum had come — and gone. Unbeknownst to Julius, his power was eroding as the days went by, and the power of those in opposition was ascending. At some point the paths of ascent and descent would cross, and Julius would find himself fighting for his life. It is, after all, very difficult for one man — alone, to rule a hostile and unsupportive empire. At the point the knives came out, the title of Caesar meant very little. When one has nothing to trade with, save a title unrecognized by those about them, one is bereft of anything useful to preserve his life, save the good graces of his enemies. Unfortunately for Julius, those around him cared nothing about the character trait of graciousness — kind of like Julius caring nothing for legalities when he seized power.

It is a deceptive thing, power being what it is. It is elusive, much desired, and cultivated by various means. Some good and honorable, and most not so good and honorable. There is yet another truism at play here. That is, how you get power is how you keep power. In the sad tale of Julius (it is sad, but not a tragedy as some suppose — he earned it) both truisms were either missed or misunderstood. Like so many, Julius thought he was the source of his power, that by force of will, his desire would be carried out by those around him and subordinate to him. He was quite mistaken.

What so many who have attained power have missed is that true power flows from those who give their loyalty and support willingly, freely and without any coercion. True power is arrived at when no form of enticement or inducement is used to gain the support of those around you. Rather, the support is given because they believe what is stated and the one they are entrusting the sweat of their brow and labor of their hands to, does indeed care for them, and truly holds the same affections as they. This in turn supports them and the first cause in their lives, which is most often their kith and kin.

We the People of the United States, in Order to  form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,  provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the  Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish  this Constitution for the United States of America.

I just wonder where its power comes from . . .

The following is an explanation of the frustration I experienced yesterday that led to a rant about a certain principle much ignored by individuals who should know better. Unfortunately, in my dissertation about that principle I ripped an individual who I appreciate very much. It was not intentional. It is just that I got very irritated about this particular principle being missed time and again. By way of explaining why it irks me so to see it ignored, I offer the following letter written back in December of 1995, right before the special election calling for a Constitutional Convention to overhaul the 1874 Arkansas Constitution.

The principle is this: The authority that is created is not greater than the authority that created it, neither can it be. Moreover, the created authority cannot destroy the higher authority that created it without imperiling its own existence.

With that, I apologize to Anthony G. Martin at The Liberty Sphere.

I also leave you with the letter to the Editor of a VERY liberal paper.

The Morning News of Northwest Arkansas
P.O. Box 7
Springdale, AR  72765
6 Dec. 1995

Editor,

What is the supreme authority of this State?  And to whom does it apply?  For it appears our Governor cannot distinguish the proper authority to follow.  Very often it is reported that the Governor, other state agencies, and the Supreme Court are the authorities of this State.  This is a grave error.  This State is a Republic.  This is guaranteed by Article 4, Sect. 4 of the Federal Constitution.  As a Republic and not a Democracy there is a fundamental difference to be observed.  It is thus: In a Democracy the majority rules regardless of the Law.  In a Republic the Law rules regardless of the majority.

The true authority of this State is the Constitution.  The Constitution has vested authority granted it by the people.  It has been shown in the Federalist 46 that the Founding Fathers of this Nation held the people as the superior of both the state and federal governments.  The principles adhered to in creating the  Federal and State Constitutions cannot be separated.  Both governments are agents and trustees of the people and the authority for their existence is the same.  To understand how these constitutions are to be construed, it is essential to know what Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist 84.

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.  They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.  For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?  Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

The law, as defined by the founding documents of this nation, is the Federal Constitution.  And in matters pertaining to the States, the state constitutions prevail.  It is the State Constitution and its provisions the Governor must look to for authority.

In accordance with Article II, Sect. 1 and Sect. 29 of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas the people are the initiating authority, the drafting authority, and the ratifying authority of the constitution.  Indeed, this principle is expressed in the Preamble of the Federal Constitution.  It states, “We the people… do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States.”

To this end it is understood government is created by Man to serve Man.  Man was not created and does not exist to serve Government.  Thereby government does not rule man, but exists to protect the rights of all.  Furthermore, God created and rules man.  God created all of us as sovereign individuals with ability to discern the Law, thus form societies and their resultant governments.  This was expressed most clearly in Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, and is recognized in the Preamble of the Arkansas Constitution.

“We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government, for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to ourselves and posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

The Founding Fathers were not merely grateful but acknowledged the Authority of Almighty God by appealing to Him for judgement in the Declaration of Independence, our Nation’s first legal document.

The acceptance of the Authority of Almighty God by the Founding Fathers is evidence they accepted the commandments of God.  This acceptance of God’s Law preceded the founding of this nation.  English history amply displays the struggle to have all individuals subject to the Law, even the King.  The central idea is expressed clearly in Romans, Chap. 13, verse 1, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” However, the Founding Fathers did not want the authority of the nation to be vested in a select individual or group of individuals, but in the Law.  Thus holding the Law separate, distinct, and higher than individuals.

By this and other actions they declared three specific things among others:

1.     The Law is external to all of us and exists whether we wish to acknowledge its existence or not.
2.     The Law is given by God and thus is not subject to the whims of the individual.
3.     Those in government are accountable to the Law just as is everyone else.

This gives rise to two questions central to the Dec. 12th election:

1.     How is it that Governor Tucker has taken it upon himself to initiate a new constitution?
2.     What authority does he cite as properly granting him this power?

It should be clear that a vote AGAINST the Constitutional Convention is in order on Tuesday, Dec. 12th.

The story about Obama’s executive order will not go away, so writes Anthony G. Martin in his Examiner column. In the column he references several other blogs and a couple of MSM articles where note of the EO has been taken, which is a good thing that they have finally noticed the Executive Order and its potential effect.

However, there is a persistent thread that runs through this whole story which irks to no end. It irritates me for one simple reason: It’s wrong. Yep, WRONG! Just plain wrong — in spades it’s wrong.

The part that is wrong is this:

“Put simply, this means the Constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land in America. Thanks to Executive Order 12425 , which Obama signed Dec. 16 without explaining why, the supreme law of the land is now arguably whatever Interpol says it is, most likely as directed by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, in conjunction with the United Nations.”

Excuse me while I go to my neighbor’s barn and begin shoveling . . .

Is it really to the point in this nation that even the supposedly educated conservatives cannot put simple concepts together and come to a reasonable, sensible conclusion? To what do I speak? This line:

“Put simply, this means the Constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land in America. Thanks to Executive Order 12425,”

BS — pure and simple. Why? Excuse me while I treat some as simple-minded children, but they have earned it. Please consider the following:

ARTICLE II
SECTION 1. Clause 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Fair enough? The office of the President of the United States DOES NOT EXIST OUTSIDE THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CONSTITUTION! Got it?

Dang, I hope so!

Logically it follows that all powers he exercises CAN ONLY BE EXERCISED WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK OF THE CREATION AND EXISTENCE OF THE OFFICE CREATED BY SAID CONSTITUTION!

Do you get that? I sure hope so!

Now, would we suppose it logical or reasonable that the President, whose office only exists because the Constitution created it and can issue Executive Orders only within the capacity of that office, to bring into existence an order that effectively nullifies the very authority that created his office in the first place?

If he did, would it not render him a pretender to the office? Would it not also abolish his very reason for existence?

Read carefully: If the President acts to nullify the very authority that created his office, does he not render himself without office, and without authority? Just where does the Office of President get its authority in the first place?

From Mars?

Are the people of this nation so freaking STUPID as to believe that ONE MAN, with the stroke of a pen, can render the Constitution NULL AND VOID — especially when his whole authority flows from the Constitution in the first place?

Get this: If the morons in government render the Federal Constitution NULL AND VOID, they do not have a reason for existing in their jobs — BECAUSE THE WHOLE REASON FOR THEIR POSITIONS FLOWS FROM THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF!

Talk about cutting your own throat . . .

The whole reason they try to PRETEND what they are doing is Constitutional is because they know that without that pretense they are operating without reason for existence. Hence, they are pretenders and an illegal operation, subject to be removed from power at the slightest whim. In fact, they could be, and should be considered enemies of the United States.

So it is that they need the cover of the Federal Constitution, and will do nothing that would openly show the document to not be in force and effect.

It really does make me wonder just who is on what side, and if all that “education” is really just a cover for the total loss of common sense in America.

I am reminded of Obadiah:

How are the things of Esau searched out! how are his hidden things sought up! All the men of thy confederacy have brought thee even to the border: the men that were at peace with thee have deceived thee, and prevailed against thee; they that eat thy bread have laid a wound under thee: there is none understanding in him. Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau? (Obadiah 6-8)

Just substitute “America” everywhere the names “Edom” and “Esau” appear — it fits.

BTW, the EO is unconstitutional — but it doesn’t overthrow the Constitution itself. No, all that has to happen is to call a spade a spade and hold the “Enlightened One’s” feet to the fire and make him rescind the EO.¹

One last point: It should be noted (and Mama Liberty especially take note) that the only way the Federal Constitution can be nullified and overthrown is if the American people and the several states REFUSE TO ENFORCE IT!

1. He needs to rescind a whole bunch of other things too, but I am not going to address those here. [↩]