Bringing a Knife to a Gun Fight January 17, 2013Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics, Uncategorized.
Tags: Dr. Robert Owens, Executive orders, executive orders guns, gun rights, Obama gun grab, Obama power grab, Second Amendment
Why isn’t it pointed out by the pontificating talking heads that every mass murder in recent memory has occurred in a legally declared “Gun-Free” zone? We might as well put signs in front of our schools, malls, army cafeterias and hospitals that say, “If you’re a crazy person no one here is armed.” Perhaps if we put a sign in front of these establishments that said, “Protected by Smith and Wesson” we would get better results?
Does anyone believe that disarming lawful citizens actually make lawful citizens safer?
Our fearless leaders are following the Progressive playbook to the letter. First and foremost “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Capitalizing on the tragedy caused by a sick person with a stolen gun these wannabe totalitarians see an opportunity to disarm their victims and they are preparing to make a move. They realize they won’t be able to outlaw the private ownership of guns in America all in one fell swoop. However, their strategy is always two steps forward one step back. This is the same strategy that has worked so well for them in capturing the education system, the media, and the two major political parties.
Now they bring their previous conquests to bear to help them achieve a long cherished goal of a defenseless America that they can shape into the shabby and dismal centrally-planned highly regimented socialist nightmare they portray as Utopia.
The education wing has given them a dumbed down populace who have never studied the Federalist Papers enough to know the Second Amendment wasn’t written to protect hunters. It was written to ensure the American public could stand up to any tyrants who would ever attempt to step on the throat of freedom.
The Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media beat the drum everyday calling for gun control, bullet control, an end to the freedom to buy and sell legal firearms or anything else they can dream up that moves their Progressive heroes closer to their goal: a gun free zone around every lawful citizen. In the meantime their entertainment wing churns out the vilest filth filled with violence and mayhem in movies and games. At the same time these pious hypocrites make money providing examples of chainsaw massacres and other scenes of slaughter, walk around with private security and send their children armed guards.
This has been accomplished in other lands. The Germans and the Russians were disarmed. Did that enhance their security? The Australians and the British have been disarmed. Has that enhanced their security? Does anyone seriously believe that criminals will not break gun laws? They are criminals. Breaking laws is what they do. Just as locks are only for honest people gun laws only disarm lawful citizens.
Should people who own guns keep them secure? Certainly. Should people with guns know how to safely use them? Certainly. Should we surrender our constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms? Absolutely not. These rights have already been infringed upon to the point where in most places it is not legal for most citizens to keep let alone bear arms.
Instead of meekly sitting still while our rights suffer further erosion we the people need to let our representatives know that we will not suffer any more incremental subversion of our liberty. We must let them know in every way that we will not go gently into the long dark night. We will not stand as sheep to be sheared of the rights given to us by our creator, recognized in our Declaration of Independence, and carved into the stone of our Constitution.
The masses of sheeple who have been bred by generations of government paternalism and educational propaganda are clamoring to be shorn of yet more of their heritage. Their cheerleaders from the anchor desk to the late night variety shows and their idols on stage and CD are herding them to the shearing pens. If we stand still for executive orders that contradict the plain intent of the Constitution we will deserve whatever we receive.
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Now is the time for the patriot to say, “We have gone this far and no further.” Freedom isn’t free. It never has been and it never will be. If we want to preserve this land of liberty the time is coming when we will have to do whatever has to be done. And it might be time to live out some of the clichés we have used for so long:
Realize God created man, but it was Samuel Colt who made them equal as you keep your powder dry, locked, loaded, and determined not to bring a knife to a gun fight.
Keep the Faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens firstname.lastname@example.org Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Executive Orders December 16, 2011Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics.
Tags: DOMA Clinton executive orders, Dr. Robert Owens, Executive orders, Obama executive orders
The problem with social engineering is that the engineers don’t know how to drive the train. More like a complicated machine than a single celled organism society is a collection of individuals. Human nature decrees that freedom of choice is an inherent part of our social DNA therefore a healthy society is one built upon the choices and decisions freely arrived upon by the individuals who make up the whole. It is the self-interest and self-direction of these choices which build into the productive life of a free society.
Adam Smith addresses the contributions of societies individuals when he says, “intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”
Conversely, Friedrich Hayek warns us “To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.”
Unfortunately, politically motivated social engineers short circuit this process by replacing the countless choices and decisions of free people with the corrosive and stifling mandates of central planning.
Our nation was not founded to be a centrally planned socially straight-jacketed empire ruled by the decrees of a sovereign. We were founded upon the revolutionary principles born of our colonial heritage and the thinking of the Enlightenment. Having fought our way free from the crushing embrace of an overbearing king, our Founders were determined to establish a representative republic of the people, by the people, and for the people.
We are a constitutional Republic. We are a nation of Laws. As Thomas Paine said in the Rights of man, “The government of a free country … is not in the persons but in the laws.” Paine also remarked that if someone should ask, “Where is the King of America?” let us answer, “In America Law is King!”
Having studied the writings of Montesquieu and other Enlightenment thinkers, having established and maintained the separate branches of the various state governments, the Framers of our Constitution enshrined the principle of the separation of powers. This separation of powers is expressly stated in our Constitution. Article 1, Section 1 states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article 2, Section 1 states, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article 3, Section 1 states, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” These passages separate the three functions, legislative, executive, and judicial into three distinct spheres and it is the dynamic relationship between the three which restrains the government from becoming repressive and allows freedom to bloom.
Montesquieu said, “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person.” James Madison, the Father of the Constitution said, “The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
Executive Orders have been used by presidents since George Washington. They are nothing new. Yet they have always been controversial. Washington issued the first one instructed the heads of departments to make a “clear account” of matters in their departments. His next one called for a national day of thanksgiving. He also issued the first one to cause controversy when he issued an order in 1793 stating that the United States would be “friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers” of Britain and France. In this “Neutrality Proclamation,” Washington justified his power to issue such a statement based on the “law of nations.” Perhaps a constitutional justification could have been found in the powers of the President over foreign affairs but these were not referenced. Washington did not convene the Congress to debate the proclamation before issuing it. Immediately James Madison criticized Washington’s order as an overextension of executive authority and an infringement on Congress’s authority to decide issues of war and peace.
Although they have been stirring controversy since the dawn of the Republic originally Executive Orders were just what the name implies, orders from the executive and they were only binding upon the departments which made up the executive department. Most were never published and were only seen by the federal agencies involved. Some were of historical note such as when Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and issued the Emancipation Proclamation or when Wilson segregated the military.
The Presidency of FDR marked a major turning point in the use of Executive orders, as in many other things. Roosevelt confronted the Great Depression as the moral equivalent of war and fought an undeclared war in the Atlantic and crippled Japan through trade sanctions. Truman desegregated the military. Eisenhower ended wage and price controls imposed by his predecessor. Kennedy and Johnson ended discrimination in housing and education. Nixon declared a war on drugs. Presidents used executive orders to steer the ship of state.
Then starting with the Clinton Administration a sea change took place in the use of Executive Orders. President Clinton used his executive power to achieve results he failed to achieve legislatively.
Over time though technically applying only to executive agencies, executive orders have taken on a wider interpretation until today they have become legally binding mandates issued by presidents who rule by decree.
With President Obama, seconded and supported by his Attorney General Holder, deciding not to enforce laws they disagree with, the rule of law has ended in the United States. We can date our passage from a nation of laws to a nation of men not with this momentous decision but more effectively from the moment our elected representatives declined to declare this action to be unconstitutional and illegal.
Today we have a government that is careening out of control and those we have elected to protect our rights by upholding the Constitution are abusing our rights and subverting the Constitution. Thomas Paine made it clear which was the cart and which was the horse when he said, “A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only a creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting a government.”
We have clearly reversed the order. The cart is before the horse and the tail is wagging the dog. The use and abuse of executive orders have changed us from a nation of laws to a nation of men, from a federal republic with a limited government to a centrally-planned bureaucracy with leaders attempting to rule by decree. We know where they want to lead us. The question before us now is; will we go quietly into that dark night?
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2011 Robert R. Owens email@example.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens