Tim Wingate
Power of Positive Patriotism
Fri Jun 25, 2004 12:56
64.140.158.46

Power of Positive Patriotism
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/patriotism.htm 

"WE ARE APT TO SHUT OUR EYES AGAINST A PAINFUL TRUTH...
FOR MY PART, I AM WILLING TO KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH;
TO KNOW THE WORST; AND TO PROVIDE FOR IT."
---- Patrick Henry

THAT PEN IS STILL MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD!

Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far
better that you fear the media, for they will steal your HONOR. That
awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a
horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and
shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse. -
-Mark Twain.
http://www.apfn.org/old/apfncont.htm

The Power in Positive Patriotism!
By Tim Wingate

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the
highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its
experienced patriots to prevent its ruin" - Samuel Adams

It is now a time for positive action, not just rhetoric, to prevent America's ruin. However, our "experienced patriots" need to know themselves before they can help change the fate of our nation. Some believe the answer comes from action from within the system. While others find the solution outside the system.

Regardless, there are consequences to either action and our patriots must be honest about what "game" it is they really want to join. We need to ask ourselves what our true motivations for change are and if we are willing to pay the price of our actions.

During my participation in the patriot movement for the last 20 years I have seen good people lose freedom, property, health, and family because of their attempts to stand up for their rights supposedly guaranteed under the Constitution for the United States of America.

Why have these losses occurred? Why have they happened at the hands of our own countrymen in our courts? Are we at war with each other? The sad truth is yes. It is a cultural war of worldviews, morals and of faiths. Consequently, this competition influences the legal interpretations of the day.

When the founding father's generation shifted their values toward the rights of man and independence, some still maintained their loyalty to royalty (the Tories). Those changing and competing cultural values eventually led to war among countrymen. We face a very similar situation today, and to ignore the fact is to bury our heads in the sand. Patrick Henry's eloquent words in his "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" speech still apply to us today:

"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."

The truth is in the origin of our rights. This truth is once again becoming
the pivotal issue of our day.

In this article, I will explore the general social problem in America, how
America is intended to be, the problem with the patriot movement's current response, and finally outline possible solutions to our dilemma. As a small caveat, I must point out that I tend to be a generalist and a synthesist of cultural trends. I do welcome diverse discourse because as Thomas Jefferson said, "I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion." Also, as it says in Proverbs 27:17 "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."

There will always be competing values in our society. However, the conflict between competing values is escalating and the pendulum is swinging toward socialism, authoritarianism and tyranny.

Before we go any further, let us take a quick refresher course in the basics of argumentation.

In Argumentation 101, we learn that any argument (for or against a
conclusion) is based upon a premise. The development of the argument upon the premise is called a syllogism. A syllogism is upheld by if/then, cause & effect statements. The efficacy of the conclusion (whether or not it can be proved true or untrue, sound or unsound) is supported by the syllogism. If the premise is unsound or untrue then the argument and conclusion is fallacious. In effect, the whole building (argument & conclusion) is based upon a foundation (premise). Hence, if the "...house is built upon the sand (untrue & unsound premise), and the storms come, the house is washed away" Luke 6:48-49. This thought sequence is the bases for math, logic, reason, law and the scientific method in our western cultural heritage.

As a result, always go to the premise first to examine its soundness and
truthfulness before attempting to argue against the components of any
syllogism. Otherwise it is a waste of time and effort, when the issue is
moot, and you end up having a quarrel rather than an argument.

Now that we have been reacquainted with argumentation, lets take another look at this issue of competing values. Today's patriot movement is factionalized by many issues. Nevertheless, there is one central issue, in particular, that most groups seem to have in common. We are obsessed with the "law." However, we cannot seem to agree, "who's" or which "law" it is.

Most of you will likely answer "God's" law. Others will say the
"Constitution." I will leave it at that because, simply put, we cannot even agree on what comprises either one of those.

We have scores of "pay-triots" selling their legal interpretations of the
maxims and statutes and codes and treaties and ordinances and jurisdictions and common law and writs. Join our club, buy this book, watch this tape, file this motion, make this asseveration, attestation, affirmation, declaration etc. You'll need: Black's, Bouvier's, Am. Jur., UCC, USC, Law of Nations, commentaries and treatises, ad nauseum. Our legal system is literally one big argument with itself turning into a quarrel.

It appears that we have become mentally constipated by the "law". Culturally, we remember the "laws" intent as presumably just, impartial, and equitable to society in general (at least in the countries that have ostensibly adopted representative, multi-branched, republican or bicameral systems).

Furthermore, cultural institutions that influence and maintain the status quo such as the government, schools, media, and religious organizations reinforce this belief. They tell us repeatedly that, "no one is above the law." On the other hand, "it might not be fair but it is the law so you must obey." In addition, "I'm sorry that you feel that way, I'm only doing my job, you'll have to tell it to the judge." It is with this culturally reinforced history of jurisprudence that we entered in, full of hope, naive and trusting in the system supported by our social institutions.

Why? Because the majority of us are "good people" who more or less agreed to "play the game" by what we thought were the rules. To illustrate, let us pretend that we are back in grade school. The neighborhood "big kid" invited us to bring our "real estate" board game and play at his house. However, playtime is not what we expected it would be.. The big kid always wants his way. He claims that since the "monopoly" game is in "his" house, he owns it, he controls the "bank" and that the rules are changed. Furthermore, to add injury to insult, he threatens to attack us if we quit and try to go home. We pull out the rulebook and cry "Foul! You're not following the rules," we
protest! He replies, "Yes I am according to new interpretations of the
"living" rules. If you don't like it, so what? Make me!"

This childish banter may seem a thing of the past, but is it? In our
"neighborhood", we looked up to the big kid. At one time, he was fun to play with and looked out for our best interests. Similarly, people look to the "law" as a divine or biblical device here to protect our interests. We expect the law to be constant. However, like our neighborhood big kid, people change. Today, unlike their original intent, laws are dynamic and shifting. Today, those who make, interpret and control the "law" place themselves above its reach. Do the names Lon Horiuchi, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Al Gore or Janet Reno ring a bell? For example, take all this "PR" about campaign finance "reform". Watch what happens. They will just jiggle the numbers around a bit, "now you see them.now you don't.presto chango and viola, the status quo reappears!" All they really did was change things around again to lock out any viability to challenge their two party monopolies. The "law" is used to control you, not them. The point I want to make is that the game is "fixed." Because of human nature, to some degree or another the game has always been "fixed." People try to, and do buy influence.

The founding fathers tried to set up an impartial and just legal system, but it did not take long for the "loopholes" to be found and exploited. Some have argued that "they" did it on purpose and some argue conversely. However, after reading the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers and accompanying letters to individuals by the framers, I think that the original intent was honest but flawed. Jefferson said to "bind them down with the chains of a constitution." The problem is that the chains that were forged had some weak links. We need to stop demanding that the "Tidy Bowl" man obey the "maritime laws of admiralty." Instead, we should find a way to get out of the toilet.

To help us clear our minds concerning the "law", we need to go back to the basics. Two hundred and twenty-four years ago a new cultural value that had been gestating was born. For over one hundred years, this "baby" had been growing in the minds and hearts of the lovers of liberty. Writings by men such as Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) The Rights of War and Peace, Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661) Lex, Rex, or the Law and the Prince, Algernon Sidney (1622-1683) Discourse on Government, John Locke (1632-1704) On Civil Government, Baron Montesquieu (1689-1755) The Spirit of Laws, William Blackstone (1723-1780) Commentaries on the Laws of England, fed this new value system. The pulpits of the nation thundered forth with the teachings that the "Creator" had endowed them with rights, not the government. The
preachers in those days were not the "pulpit parrots" offering a pabulum of pacifism, as today. They were so effective that King George called them the "Black Robed Regiment."

This new cultural value was based on an understanding of what Liberty and Freedom were! Most people think that the two are the same, however there are subtle differences. Liberty is the right that we have by the fact of having life and being born. As Jefferson said, "Life and Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is what our "Creator" endowed us with. "Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government." (Noah Webster 1828)

Freedom on the other hand, is what we are allowed to have by an authority. "Freedom is the state of exemption from the power or control of another." (Noah Webster 1828) Simply put, Liberty is the right; Freedom is the exercise of that right. Both of these items come from, as Jefferson wrote in the first paragraph of the Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God." Both of these rights are absolutely essential for there to be any real meaning to "the pursuit of Happiness." (Some have argued that Jefferson's use of "pursuit of Happiness" should have been, as John Locke wrote, "Property." However, I believe that Jefferson's expansion of mere property ownership to the "pursuit of Happiness" was genius. "pursuit of Happiness" is self-determination, including the ownership of property.)

On the other hand. If, you believe that we are the product of random chance over billions of years and have survived because of being the most genetically fit by way of natural selection, then the only "right" you
possess is, a greater might than others. Hardly a philosophical or moral
springboard there. We have heard it before, "Might makes Right!" There is no morality, right or wrong, good or evil except for that which is personally beneficial for the wielder of might. At some point the wielders create a government with a "law" that grants alienable "rights."

Just an aside to those who want to believe in the "evolutionary" model,
whichever version you prefer (uniformitarianism, natural selection,
punctuated equilibrium, speciation, etc.), what scientific method evidence do you have to prove that mankind is the apex of the evolutionary process? Since you believe that the universe has existed for billions of years, could not something have passed this way before us? Could they have left information, instructions, and guidance? Now, before you all think that I am going off on some Roddenberry or Lucas universal consciousness direction I am not. I am just illustrating that life is a gift. We do not know where it came from for sure but it needs to be nurtured, encouraged and protected. We all have our beliefs and faith in those beliefs. But, if you believe that life is cheap, and might makes right, then you are a potentially destructive force (enemy) to my and other's existence.

If you believe that there is intelligent design behind our existence,
whatever that intelligence may be ("Nature's God" implies a superior being), and you believe that intelligence has communicated a behavioral model (moral code or "Laws of Nature") to live by, then you believe that Life (existence) is Right (endowed with unalienable rights). There is an objective or authoritative standard separate from the personal beneficial desires of the individual or government. Morality, right and wrong, good and evil are judged by that standard.

Jefferson wrote in the second paragraph of the Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." Simply put, Rights came first, then Governments with "just Powers." In other words, the power of government is to be "just" law (powers). Law that is fair, moral, upright, founded in truth and fact, recognizing the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God," having integrity, and "derived" from the "consent" of the people. Do we have that today? Do those that enforce the "law" believe in those founding principles? Do they even know those principles? I do not think so.

But, here is a chance to prove me wrong and have some fun. Get a clipboard, dress nice but casual, and approach any policeman. Ask him these two questions, "Do you/we have rights? Where do they come from?" See how many can answer correctly. If you can, get their name and badge number. Then compose a letter to your local newspaper and send them the results. Depending on the percentage of correct answers you can commend or criticize the police department's hirelings. I doubt that there will many letters of commendation. Try this on your city council or county board members. Try this with the high schoolers in your area. After all, they have been freshly "educated" on the subject and are preparing to vote in a few years. Try this on everybody you know and keep track of how many answer correctly (patriot meetings don't count). It may surprise you.

I have read hundreds of articles, dissertations, magazines, books etc. All
dealing with the legal and freedom issues that we currently argue. Many
deb

• What The Debate Is About . . . . TRUTH — Charles Rossotti, Fri Jun 25 13:16