Winston Churchill once observed, “If you will not fight for right
when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when
your victory is 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
precarious chance of survival.”
Churchill noted that, “There may 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.”
We may well be on the precipice of that “worse case.”
Have you ever noticed how the ACLU and usual liberal agenda suspects
defend the First Amendment with the unbridled fervor of religious
zealots? That’s a good thing, right? So how and why do they display
such hinky diffidence in applying that same enthusiasm for other
amendments in the Bill of Rights? Could it be the routine
anti-constitionalists’ duplicity to negate facts, which contradict their
pre-conceived opinions? Could it be myopia? Prejudice? Bigotry? Or
are they conditioned to only defend political agendas, notwithstanding
the Constitution, Bill of Rights and rule of law?
Frederick Douglass observed, “Find out just what people will submit
to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which
will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are
resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are
prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Although Douglass wasn’t talking about incrementalism, he was
describing incrementalism. Testing the limits of endurance of injustice
is part and parcel of incrementalism. An army uses probing attacks to
identify weaknesses, and harass an enemy. When a weakness is
identified, it becomes a target of opportunity to be exploited.
Tyrants, anti-constitutional sycophants peddling the panacea of
socialism use the same tactics. Lower standards, homogenize attitudes,
encourage and then mandate tolerance of the intolerable while routinely
defending the indefensible. Sound familiar?
Some insightful anonymous student of history once noted that
“Patriots are not revolutionaries trying to overthrow government.
Patriots are counter-revolutionaries trying to prevent government
from overthrowing the U.S. Constitution.”
Recently, I made reference to an observation by columnist/commentator
Ann Coulter, in which she noted if the Second Amendment were to be
defended with the passion they routinely direct at the First Amendment,
Americans might well be required to own nuclear weapons. Subsequently,
I received an e-mail from a listener/reader with an idea so sick … it
may merit consideration.
I have often noted that on the basis of facts, defenders of
the Second Amendment should win any debate. There is a huge body of
statistical evidence that proves two points as being axiomatic: 1) In
communities in which law abiding citizens are armed (or at least
criminals are not sure if they are not armed), crime goes down. 2) In
communities in which law abiding citizens are denied the opportunity to
exercise their free will to own arms, crime goes up. Both scenarios are
well documented with overwhelming statistical analysis.
However, anti-constitutional socialists and propaganda pundits
continue to win the hearts and minds of the sheeple by parading any and
all statistical aberrations in which the offensive tool was a gun.
Tim from Carson City, Nev., wrote, “Dear Geoff – It occurred to me
last night that perhaps if there were an anti-First Amendment
organization then perhaps the “mainstream” press might begin to
recognize the threat of such organizations to our Constitution.” Tim
may be considering facts not in evidence, but here’s his suggestion:
“For example what about something like: Speech Control Incorporated?
After all, there are plenty of words or phrases that are not ‘needed.’
Especially given all of the ‘hate crime’ legislation, the need to
eliminate offensive words is all the more pressing!” Imagine the
benefits “for the children” if they were never to be tempted with the
potential of using intemperate language. “Of course it stands to reason
that the manufacturers of the machinery that can produce such horrible
words may well be subject to litigation. As a consequence, computer,
typewriter, paper, ink and software companies should all be on notice
that they assume liability for the misuse of their products in the
creation of ‘hate speech’ or offensive language.” Venues for the
distribution of potentially offensive language (print, radio,
television, computers, et al) would and could be subject to litigation
(the lawyers would LOVE this). “I guess it goes without saying that the
protection of the children from such speech would be a significant
benefit! What do you think?” Tim even suggests that when ‘Up’Chuck
Schumer retires he could start up just such an organization, or maybe
Sarah Brady might expand her focus — ‘for the good of the children.'”
Speech Control Inc. might be a cute academic exercise, but as absurd
a concept is to a “reasonable” person, the dangers of letting THAT genie
out of the bottle is just way too dangerous. Remember, the concept of
Handgun Control Inc., was an absurd concept to a reasonable person 30-40
years ago. Stuff happens. … Consider the following:
- Aristotle noted, “Republics decline into democracies and
democracies degenerate into despotisms.” Republic good — Despotism
bad. I’ll buy that. - George Bernard Shaw observed, “Democracy substitutes election by the
incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.” Sad but
increasingly true. - Lastly, classic definitions … and multiple choice.
- A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
- A Republic: The flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on
dinner. - A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly
forbidden, and the sheep are armed. - Federal Government: The means by which the sheep will be fooled
into voting for a Democracy.
Pick one of the above. There is only one correct answer.
