A firestorm has been started on Esquire's The Politics Blog with a Tuesday opinion piece by Lt. Col. Robert Bateman titled "It's time to talk about guns and the Supreme Court." He not only takes SCOTUS and Justice Antonin Scalia to task for their Heller decision interpretation of the Second Amendment, but goes on to propose citizen disarmament edicts that dispense with false assurances given by some in the gun ban camp that nobody wants to take our guns away.
Bateman does, big time, and makes no bones about it. In a way, he's done us a service by giving a glimpse of the end game less candid incrementalists are inching toward.
Per his profile at Small Wars Journal, he "is an infantryman, historian and prolific writer. Bateman was a Military Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and has taught Military History at the U.S. Military Academy."
That he can boast these achievements brings an assumed gravitas to the discussion he wants to start simply with his credentials. When such a man speaks out, there is a natural presumption of authority.
The problem is, his arguments don't live up to that expectation, and rather quickly fall apart with just a superficial analysis.
The Second Amendment only protects a well regulated militia, he argues. "As of 1903," he maintains, "the 'militia' has been known as the National Guard."
Actually, the resulting United States Code also recognized the "unorganized militia" to include "members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia," but Bateman dismisses that responding to a comment poster that "they are not 'well regulated' [and] are therefore not the body considered in the 2nd Amendment as protected."
There are two problems with Bateman's assertions in addition to the obvious one that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about: First, as the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate Ninety-Seventh Congress documented, "Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia."
As for who is protected by the Second Amendment, it's the people, just like it says. Alexander Hamilton addressed "well regulated" in The Federalist No. 29, conceding "To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss...Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped … "
Hamilton recognized that soldiering is a profession, and knew that people had farms to work, shops to tend, trades to ply. But the value of them being "properly armed and equipped" was nonetheless recognized, even if they weren't "well regulated" as a body -- what regulation they would be subjected to would come if and when mustered, but there was no precondition on arms ownership imposed on what they could possess outside of militia duty.
As wrong as he is on chastising SCOTUS for "flunk[ing] basic high school history," that's not where Bateman has generated the most applause from his "progressive" followers and the most contempt from gun rights advocates. That comes when he tells us about laws he'd like to see enacted.
He wants to end the practice of police being able to auction seized weapons. He wants to do a nationwide "buyback." He wants to nationalize arms manufacturers. He wants draconian and escalating ammunition taxes.
But wait, as late TV pitchman Billy Mays used to say, there's more.
He wants to limit private gun ownership to "Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets … Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns [and] Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds."
"We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers," Bateman threatens. So much for the illusion of civilian control of the military, although it does drive home the fear the Founders had of a standing army.
"That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes," he explains.
"Hopefully," but not necessarily, Colonel? Will you also wait for my heirs?
"When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them," he dictates. "Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved."
While he doesn't flesh out how all this will be enforced, he does offer some chilling clues.
"My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence," he explains. "There are no two ways around that fact. My job, at the end of the day, is about killing. I orchestrate violence.
"I am really good at my job," he self-assesses.
Ah, that monopoly of violence the "progressives" are so intent on crushing the Republic under …
Still, since he started the conversation in this direction, it would be helpful if Oberstleutnant Bateman would provide some specifics.
What happens if some of us say "No"? What happens if some of us resist? Creatively? Give us some scenarios here. I mean, after all, you guys have jets and tanks and nukes and everything.
Flesh your jackbooted terror campaign of national conquest out for us. Tell us about that violence you will organize, you ridiculous and contemptible totalitarian.
Jeez, Bob, we're not scared of you and we are everywhere. What now?
Well, it might be the time to remind ourselves that before he proved what he was really made of, one of our greatest military heroes was Benedict Arnold.
Sounds like another dempsey suck ass who could not make it with the troop units, below his self appointed position. Would like to question hos former NCO's about any leadership potential he might have possessed. Announcing his connection(s) to the Academy in this time period might not be all that enhancing to his vite as there are degenerates being married in the West Point Cadet Chapel, the Honor Code is just a bunch of words on a piece of paper and the Pentagon Peacocks use it as a breeding pen for liberal/socialist thinking officers who will also disregard their oath of office for career enhancement.
i think "progressives" joining the military was all part of the plan for the gutting... they've slowly been doing this, just as they slowly infiltrated the educational system... and we were all blindly living our lives, raising our kids, and fighting for the country... this isn't just accidental... i would not be surprised if there aren't hundreds more like him!
See....it's pinheads like this that results in friendly "fragging".....time to clean up the military gene pool.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis
JAGAR THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ( OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES ++++ WE NEED TO SAY THAT WE ARE READY TO ) +++++ SOMETHING ++++ HAS ++++ TO ++++ BE ++++ DONE +++++ CALL THE MILITARY ??????????????????????? .
If the rectal orifice comes to disarm me he better do it with the first shot because there won't be a second one, for him anyway. I am sick and tired of these people who take an oath to ALMIGHTY GOD to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the so-called president of the United Stated then try to rewrite that same Constitution that they haven't even read or tried to study. He must work at the Pentagon or state department and is making sure his job is secure for the next 3 years so that blobama and his idiot replacement for billory think that putting us under the rule of the UN is the best way to control us, I DON'T THINK THAT SHIP WILL SAIL, AND I WASN'T EVEN NAVY!
This could only come from an officer, with limited field duty, and the majority experience as an instructor. Any combat qualified officer knows as a matter of fact, he can't accomplish a damned thing except that he has top quality NCO's, who all came out of "Private" and Boot Camp, and became good NCO's because of the down to earth practical experience, and their liking under fire.
As a Sergeant, I was teaching my superiors how to take their "book knowledge" and turn it into practical application on the ground, because to the time I was Staff Sergeant, I was part of the 15% of the Corps that had been in combat.
I learned a great deal of strategy, tactics, practical choices in support, all sorts if things in "Staff Academy" and "Advanced Staff Academy" however the most crucial lessons I know about combat were learned on the ground, in Beirut, in Somalia, in Mombasa, with the enemy confronting and holding their own land, and we being foreigners, and in the minority.
This man is installed, I have no idea who he is, but he could never get to that post as a matter of skill and experience, every bit of battlefield experience proves out the concept of "a citizen militia" as being the most important factor in holding one's nation against an enemy, either internal or external.
The Dick act of 1902, also known as "The efficiency in Militia act of 1902" was put through for one and only one reason. At the conclusion of the Spanish American war, an open act of empire on our part, the president refused to do what the constitution requires when the war was over- disband the "Standing Army", because it is not authorized.
The constitution specifies the Nation will keep a standing Navy, trained, equipped, with sufficient ships, manning, and practice, to defend the coasts of our Nation, and it will keep Marines, soldiers trained to fight from the decks of ships and provide a ground force to take forward naval bases, and support the naval actions in defense of the Nation.
The Militia is stated specifically as the "people's liberty teeth" in President Washington's own words, Hamilton stated the Militia consisted of all able bodied citizens, and was the primary defense of our nation against all enemies. Our Nation was established on a continent the founders expected to have both coasts in their control, and saw no purpose for an Army, except for the purpose of empire and conquering.
The "Dick Act of 1902" was proposed, assembled, and passed because we had an army after the war, a president intent on fulfilling "The Monroe Doctrine", and yet the constitution demanded the army be dismissed.
Congress, our specialists in finding a way around government following the rule of law, made up this act, stating the regular army to be "The Regular Militia, establishing the State Guard units, some of which had been used outside their state, actually in the invasion of islands, in complete disregard for standing law for the use of militia, as the cause for the establishment of this act.
The act clarifies the "regular army" as primary part of "the militia", the State Guard units as the regulated militia, and all able bodied citizens, including all men between ages of 16 ad 45 as "the irregular militia", and also states all the militia, including the "regular army" are equally qualified in arms and equipment.
Wilson was proposed for being impeached, and removed for planning the use of state guard units to fight the war in Europe, and for attempting to push through a draft of 100,000 men for that war.
This man is an obama plant or a socialist minded officer who managed to ride his way into a teaching job. If his classes were monitored for content by proper experienced supervisors, he would be removed for cause. What he is teaching is the antithesis of "a free and independent people, Sovereign Citizens in their own Right, and the source of all government, constitutional, and National and State authority".
The moment anyone states government has authority to do something, if it is not written word for word in the constitution, they are wrong. The fact 90% of all government activity is external to constitutional limits does not make it extra-constitutionally in authority but makes the central government "the actual domestic enemy", and no less an enemy that the soldiers King George was about to "Quarter" in the homes of "dissidents" and the proximate cause for the "midnight ride of Paul Revere", the meeting with the British on the Lexington Greens, and in Concord, at "The Old Bridge".
I am sure some of my weapons have trails that can be followed, if the government breaks the law. I will not register guns, they don't have trail to all the weapons I've legally bought in private, and I have the absolute right and the legal right to build, make or assemble any fire arm I am legally authorized to own. They have no trail at all.
Two decades ago, I had a model 94 Winchester 30-30, and an 1861 Colt, Navy revolver, cap and ball black powder, and considered them sufficient to defend my home, my community, all my "militia" responsibility. As the government has continuously ramped up its criminal acquisitions, armed parts which it has no authority, I've been forced to increase my arms accordingly.
I can only hope this particular officer leads the way in confiscating my own weapons. When the government follows the law, we are bound by our status as Sovereign Citizens, to live exactly within the law, we are the "Sovereigns", we violate ourselves, committing crime. While government refuses to follow the rule of law, while it denies constitutional constraint, and openly violates the constitution, there is no "rule of law" over our Nation, and we, as The Sovereigns, the Rulers of our Nation, make our law, and use our founding principles in forming such law as we find necessary to restore our republic, bring a criminal government back under the law, and restore principle as foremost in our Nation.
By this understanding we have every power and right our founders had, establishing this nation, no entity we establish, has any authority over any individual, while it is outside the law. In principle, the government can declare martial law today, and we, "The Sovereign People of The Several States of The United States" can simply declare the government as corrupt, illegal, make plain our standards for stating such, showing its crimes, and declaring its declaration, mutinous against the republic, and call every member of government "committing open treason against the United States".
Three months ago, calling up "the Dick act of 1902" would bring up the actual written legislation, and then a long list of commentary on it, dating back to before its passage. In looking back for it for this response, the legislation was not available for me to easily peruse, it has been moved, and I have no doubt for good reason. If you can't get the full wording, complete, online, find it at the library, it is crucial we have this completely out in the open, because such "douchebags" to steal words from a recent reply, lie by twisting words and abusing them. We must know their true meaning to throw them down with vigor.
When America no longer belongs to "The People" only then will any of the claims made by the left have any truth in them. It is up to us to determine whether we retain our authority, or allow it be stolen. Education is key and indispensable.
God Bless this work, Semper Fidelis, John McClain, GySgt, USMC, ret.
Then there is another issue we ought to discuss with this regard. It seems we want to have arms in our military, and we think we ought to have weapons and systems at least equal and probably superior to any likely enemy we might have to confront.
Where, Bob, do you think government gets weapons? Does the "gun fairy show up and endow you, in government, with cute new toys, advanced, better than before, and if that's true, does the same "gun fairy" also endow the enemy with guns, and if this is the case, who gets better, or do both governments get the same?
The machine gun was invented solely because Hiram Maxim went to Europe to sell his products, most of which started around gas lighting appliances and automatic sprinkler systems for warehouses. When he was unsuccessful, his manager told him essentially, "hang all these timing gas lighters, and fire systems, no one wants them, if you want to make a pile of money, invent a gun that will allow those Europeans to kill each other faster and you will be a millionaire".
Maxim took the Winchester 73 action, modified it a bit, added a spring and pendulum, and built a machine gun which could fire 20,000 rounds non-stop without failure.
Every single weapon in use today has been invented by someone, not by governments. If the government comes for mine, and they win, they will discover a new kind of weapon they've no idea exists. In fact, they will find several new ideas, and some old ideas, applied to ensuring I am safe from my criminal government.
At the beginning of the first world war, America has a few hundred machine guns, and Germany had 60,000 Maxims. By the end of the war, we had more than them, in fifteen or twenty varieties. Not a one was invented, designed, or even made by government, and the fact remains, we, the individual tax payers, bought and paid for all of them, all the war, every bit of the costs.
This idiot officer has no clue of "a free and independent people", he shows total disregard for the founding principles of our nation, and he should properly be cashiered, and run out dishonorably for cause. Unfortunately, by allowing our criminal fascist government, a form it has retained since "dear Teddy", who "criminally took land from the States in executive action, without any legal support, no constitutional amendment, with good intent, making our national parks, but having simply ignored the constitutional constraint which is very specific in stating exactly what land the federal government may buy or procure.
We have not had a "free and un-controlled" election since that time, leading members of both parties are bound first, last and always to the international communist plan, and even as Russia has eagerly discarded their association with it, having discovered the true depth and breadth of its destruction, we remain allowed to vote for the selected politicians they choose for us.
We have far more leading Officers and Senior Enlisted who are now retired, but true to their oaths, than ever before, and we have a military which has a "hands on president" who is communist and muslim, and has made it his business to rearrange the military order, now, summarily, it having been weakened for decades by like-minded presidents and their appointments of top officers.
There was damn good purpose in having no "standing army". No president should have an army with which to threaten any other nation, we certainly can defend ourselves without one. At the same time, when we need an army, it must be dedicated to war, full prosecution of it, with all vigor, effort, arms, and the sole intent to win and end the threat which caused us to raise it.
It is all well and good to hold ballistic missiles for national defense, given the state of weapons in the world. Maintaining air national guard, and "national guard" as "regular militia" is both legal and good. All of these things demand cooperation between state governments and a law abiding federal government.
Having used the Dick act to illegally suggest our current standing army is legitimate before the constitution, by calling it the "regular militia" was criminal at the time it was done, it remains unconstitutional, and it is the proximate cause for our war with Korea, Vietnam, and the fact that during the two decades I served in the Corps, from 76-97, there was never a day we did not have Marines or Seals, or Special Forces, at war, fighting, in foreign Nations, either for the U.N. of just because, and this has been standard as a matter of fact, since "Teddy" precisely because we have had so many "war-mongering presidents", few of whom ever served, most of the worst, being "the least qualified to lead anything".
The "civilian force equal in strength, numbers and arms to our armed forces" was exactly what the militia was designed to prevent, because to have such a thing suggests the government by nature, has full and complete authority over the regular doings of the whole of the population.
We didn't have police forces in cities until cities began the banning of carrying weapons openly, to placate the meek, intimidated by all these arms. While meek citizens complained about their fears, but didn't have criminals to face, because they were commonly confronted by armed citizens, De Tocqueville, touring America in the early 1800's, noted "the American people are singularly armed, walking about the common streets openly carrying guns, yet there is a strange quality of politeness one won't find in any European city, the people give respect to each other and expect it, as equals, and the lack of crime here is truly remarkable".
Those words, those many observations made by visitors from every Nation in Europe, and well considering this status in comparison to what had been conventional and standard throughout Europe throughout history, have been eliminated from our own history books by the socialists, the communists precisely to hide the truth of what free and independent produces, so they can define it as "sheer anarchy" and by stating this constantly, and abjectly denying the true state of affairs, push constantly for a police state.
They do their best to deny we became a free and independent Nation precisely because "we, of all people" were willing to stand up and fight the police state of the British Empire, and declare both our independence, and the rational, self-evident facts and natural law" by which our actions were demonstrably right, and every argument against our principles fails in logic and reason when confronted.
Crony capitalism was only beginning to come into power as the war between the States broke out, and it was a major factor in the war, its prosecution, and the winning of it. It also established the way politics would be controlled for the foreseeable future, with it taking almost total control of our government during "reconstruction".
The fight of the south against reconstruction was as much against the corporations awarded government contracts, and using them to destroy any competition in the south, as it was against the desegregation and rights of Blacks. That it was so is the very reason you won't find it in any history text book, but if you read history, it is in every quality book by a qualified author.
We are truly fighting only against the final chapter of what has been planned and worked for almost two centuries, and seen as fully coming into its own immediately after our re-organization as a nation, post reconstruction. Every European nation has fought with its communists for the whole of the last century and the previous. We have those who were exiled, had a price on their heads, and we have not confronted what they have done until now.
What we must never forget is that while socialism is built on the notion of atheism, every other aspect dovetails neatly into the plan and intent of islam. While the socialists and communists expect to run this nation shortly, the truth is, they can at best, break our holding out against U.N. based world government, and if they do, it will only be then, the full press of islam will come against the U.N., and it will become a vassal unit for propagating islam, and regulating it in the many varying cultures.
We are at war now, with our government, to remain "a free and independent people, with a Sovereign Nation we are the Sovereigns over", with about a third of our occupants suggesting the old form is obsolete, and socialism is the sole reasonable way we can grow and continue. We might be as much as a quarter of the adult population at most, those grounded and believing in the constitution.
Our greatest strength is in the sure and certain knowledge, the constitution is our own, it is our mutual contract between "the sovereign citizens of the Several States", by which we defined exactly what we chose for government, and what we have deliberately and completely excluded from their power, and fully retain for ourselves.
There is no answer to that claim which can stand scrutiny, and is logical, consistent with our heritage, and consistent with the principles we espoused in our Declaration of Independence, and our National Creed.
If we would be other than the republic our founders established, by rights, we must choose, as A People, to hold a referendum and only if we choose "by two thirds vote in Congress, and by three quarters vote in the Several States" to discard the constitution, can we legally say we no longer hold government to the exacting and explicit limitations of said document. Since the government, its establishment, its form, and its size is specifically detailed to exactitude in the constitution, it is a subject of it, and cannot be party to altering that which it is subject to, except at our explicit demand. That is "the law of the land" undeniable, and it is simply unbearable to tyrants and would be tyrants, such as this "officer".
Semper Fidelis, John McClain, GySgt, USMC, ret.
Jaeger, when I was stationed at MCAAS Yuma, AZ in 1960 - 1961 several of us Marines walked the streets of Yuma with our handguns in open carry holsters. No one ever bothered us and we never had to pull the weapons. I agree with you as to Chicago, but add San Francisco, New York, and all the rest of the anti-Second Amendment places. I am seriously considering putting a sig up in my window pointing out the anti-gun neighbors. Let the thieves head over there! The best thing you can do is the same thing I tell all my clients from the military and the police. Do not tell anyone you have any guns, and, do not register them if you can find any that are sold without the paperwork. Semper Fi! ~ GySgt Thomas Lakin, USMC Retired
I only wish to interject that I am proud to be reading the historical recantations as you gentlemen have put to computer.
It is true that there are some officers in uniform that think this way. Monopolizing on Violence... this is a joke. One has but to look at our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq to see where that Shock and Awe went. Sure, we took the fight to them hard; Marines, Army, Air Force and Navy Seals, but guess what comes when we go into garrison, training, rebuilding mode... yep... you guessed it, those lil bastards reproduce! so shall we.
This is an age old battle. History will always repeat itself and those in power these days, are few in number that can control their lust for more control.
A wise perception all the way. It is those of offices who use such terms. We did NOT use shock and awe, a commander in chief determined we'd do it the hard way, fighting in the streets, waiting until they couldn't be ignored any longer, and then going in with "rules of engagement".
No doubt this officer is well familiar and quite comfortable with the notion of "rules" in war. Laws, yes, we are civilized, or we are not. Rules of engagement are management tools of a manager, seeking the lowest wage cost for warehouse workers.
There are certain rules of engagement which were totally disregarded to our loss. Never engage without a live weapon, even if the enemy promises not to attack.
Never wait until the enemy has completely taken a defensible position and allow him a year to resupply, fix strong points, open "honey traps" and train in the terrain, learning every nook and cranny that can be used as a defensive position.
We used to teach these rules of engagement in our professional schools. I suspect most Soldiers and Marines were as livid as myself as we allowed, for example, Fallujah.
Our founders established this nation that we could live as free citizens, with little prospect for war, having friends on our north, on our south, and with the faith and belief we would have two coastlines to defend.
There is no good argument for our entry into the first world war except Wilson was president, and he was a democrat. Democrats like to demonstrate they aren't afraid of war, and lead us into "making the world safe for democracy". We aren't or at least are not supposed to be a "democracy"; that was exactly the first form of government our "continental Congress" laughed out of the courthouse.
We were established a republic, a People whose primary drive is to produce and trade, and establish peaceful living by being productive, and thus economically powerful, and inventive, and thus being technologically powerful, but most of all, "living in the means and manner designed with deliberation, great care, and the extremes of consideration as to form, function, and principles.
Our forefathers had watched war as a constant on the European continent, and saw no reason for us to consume ourselves likewise. They knew, with no doubts at all, if one prepares for war, having fought one to secure one's place, and dedicates effort, intellect, and principle to being productive, honorable in all dealings, and holding truth uppermost, well including driving a hard bargain, knowing the real value of what one produces, and what is being offered, a Nation can live in peace, operating to the best interests of the Culture and the Nation which precedes from these things assembled, and we could be "the shining city on the hill".
The founders had no less intent to live before God than their predecessors, and believed we were established in a felicitous position, we could engage everyone with trade, yet be practically impregnable to invasion. Such a position allows peaceable people the ability to be able to be prepared for defense, but to focus on being valuable in productivity and by this, a better world, average people living better, and perhaps finding less cause for war.
We, This Nation America, did in fact produce such an effect for a bit, but we stopped thinking about merely being our own Nation, and an example, and have allowed the siren call "to lead in freedom", and through this, to make pre-emptive war our natural calling.
That was chosen long ago, even before our own war between the states. If we ever regain control of our government, I would suggest the single most important thing we must do is to return to a true and working version of "the one room schoolhouse".
Segregating students allows the teaching of straight-forward, old fashioned basic ideas to the youngest, while teaching the elder students the lies, obfuscations and other means of dissembling that have become common for adults, those who want more than they believe they should pay for. This teaching our very young the simple truths, and expecting them to believe, and then twisting it around very shortly thereafter, and suggesting truth only has "time and place" is how we start with truth, and rational reason, and graduate with hypothetical ideas of egalitarian works to equalize the outcome of differential efforts, energy applied, and intent to excel.
My great grandfather George Washington VanHoose, was born to a drunk father with an abused mother, who died in childbirth with their second child. When he was about eight his father started beating on his younger brother, about five. At that point, my ancestor took his brother and left, working his way around Ohio, keeping his younger brother in school.
He joined the army when the Spanish American war broke out, younger brother well established as an apprentice, and survived to return home. He had concluded in the Army, he needed an education, never having gone to school.
He returned to his home town, at 21, and walked into the school house, answering the teacher, he was there to start at the beginning. He graduated from school in a few years, our family records don't show how many, but then married the teacher.
The entirety of our "formal state and federal education system" was planned to come about because Jefferson and company were well aware of the value of their own educations, and wanted a common level to become the norm.
As the Louisiana purchase was being evaluated by Lewis and Clark, the socialists and communists who had kept wars fomented in the countries of Europe were being exiled, and saw our nation as the opportunity to be part of establishing education systems and by this, saw the prospect of teaching a whole nation to be socialist, by establishing the curriculum.
It is entirely the idea of socialists to rebuild the enemy once he has been defeated, with the intent of forming "empire" by "educating".
A careful reading of Marx, the ancillary writings regarding socialism and communist ideas will demonstrate it is all about revolution, and while light, carelessly written suggestions of communal decision and rule are strewn throughout such media as is available, there is no discernible means of establishing government as egalitarian in form, as the entirety of their pre-revolution rhetoric suggests is their purpose.
If all that is described is the various means and methods of fomenting revolution, and there is no practical means or method of raising up a form of government which could or would provide the suggested needed "egalitarian outcome".
The reason it is like this is because outcomes depend rather exactly on input, and lie as they will, some people find their own focus, and pursue their dream with all vigor, others wait, doing as little as possible, until they find themselves forced into work they don't like, won't excel in, because they don't love it, and won't drive, to make up for their previous lack of effort, yet expect their far lesser efforts to provide an equal outcome.
Our founders discarded "democracy" with gales of laughter, knowing it was useless to even consider. Those with the intent to rule a nation have worked with all their knowledge of human nature, the similar knowledge of history, and plan to bring "The People" to heel with platitudes, statements of abuse and deliberate acts intended to form factions, and turn such against each other, knowing if "the people merely keep their head about them, don't lose sight of truths, well understood", they can't be fooled, and will always prevail.
Ignorance is the best friend of the war monger, and while every means was possible for our living Nationally, with the least threat of war, those intent on taking power through ruling, have to take the nation to war to have cause to apply martial law, and assume powers exactly and deliberately denied them by all rational consent.
We are at war around the world solely because our Nation in peace, is easily entirely in the control of "The People", and there is little excuse to ever apply a tax that the people see no possible need for.
We allowed the installation of an education system completely antithetical to our founding principles, and we lost sight of the tremendous value of the school house holds, in keeping principles fixed, and across sub-generations, and thus kept fixed, standard, and constantly challenged, and thus defended.
We can restore our republic, however if we don't discard "the education system" and allow competition of "free market principle" keep "education" something worthy of competition at least as much as every other thing we believe worthy of finding the best of, we will inevitably fall exactly back in the same position.
More than anything else, we must choose to be a "Nation of Sovereign Citizens" unwilling to allow anyone else to dictate how we live, and having the easy opportunity to live in peace, with no realistic threats. We must keep "the busybodies" away from any office, and never allow the notion we are responsible for "making another people free", knowing we do nothing but change who rules them.
Semper Fidelis, John McClain, GySgt, USMC, ret.
Completely well written. Uber kudos and with that, I shall depart, stage left.