Merry Christmas

As the more ‘enlightened’ and ‘progressive’ members of the United States Congress who defend those who worship at the altar of separation of church and state recess for their annual month long Christmas break, opting not to classify it as a ‘seasonal’, or ‘holiday’ break, the Madison Conservative would like to remind them of the true meaning of Christmas, as written in scripture and so eloquently presented by Charles Schulz via Linus van Pelt.

To wit:

“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night, and lo the angel of the Lord came upon them and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and they were sore afraid, and the angel said unto them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David, a savior, tis Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes lying in a manger."

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly hosts, praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.

So Merry Christmas and the Madison Conservative will return the first Monday of 2012.

A Minor Delay

The Madison Conservative has encountered a minor scheduling conflict that will delay this weeks post until Wednesday, December 21st, 2011.

Citizen Surveillance and Law Enforcement

“…secure the blessings of liberty…”

The founders and framers knew that if a government designed on the principles of democratic self-rule were to succeed, for themselves and their posterity, the adherences to the laws of their fledgling nation would need to be followed and respected by all her citizens; failure to do so would result in nothing but a dissolution of the republic and a return into the despotic rule of an anointed sovereign.

Their wisdom has guided this nation for more than two and a quarter centuries, and we as a people have accepted that America is a nation of laws, laws that must apply to all, lest they apply to none.

To secure our freedom, we entrust our law enforcement officials with wide ranging powers and a scope of enforcement that has no rival in the world.

It is therefore troubling to discover that some law enforcement agencies have opted to pressure state legislatures to impose restrictive sanctions upon its citizens if they, in the act of proper citizenship, hold police accountable for those officers’ actions.

To wit:

With the advent of cell phone videotechnology, more and more public conduct is captured digitally and posted on numerous Internet outlets designed the presentation for such public videos.

A recent case in point has received little notice, but should be troubling to the American electorate and thus must be addressed as a critical matter of public policy.

(as is the policy of the Madison Conservative, when appropriate, the specific names of the individuals involved have been omitted, to protect their privacy and to remain focused of the larger issue at hand)

The news reported this specific story as follows:

The video in question shows the 2009 Preakness. A woman lies bleeding on the ground inside Pimlico Race Course in Maryland after an altercation with police.

“How many times are you going to punch her,” someone yells at the five or so cops, who are holding the woman on the ground.

“Was that necessary?” another person screams.

An officer at the scene can be heard telling bystanders to stop videotaping the incident with their cellphones.

“Turn that off,” he says, claiming it’s “illegal” to tape the police in a public place. –(emphasis ours- in Maryland, the law can be construed to make this claim truthful))

 Questioned about the incident, a former detective and pro police organization spokesman offered this response:

“Police officers do not need citizens out there with cameras videotaping each and every move that they make.”

He says cameras get in the way of good law enforcement.

“They interfere with the arrests and, actually, that's exactly what happened with that arrest in Baltimore.”

He’s examined the videotape from Pimlico and he says spectators with cameras made the whole incident worse.

“These individuals were standing back hollering, taunting the police,” he said. “They were interfering and obstructing the arrest.”

The video itself is still available online, and citizens can make their own opinions relative to the conduct of the officers in question, and the video does not show what instigated the arrest or the conduct of the woman prior to the video being started.

For this issue, those particulars are not important, nor relevant.

The issue and the question that necessitates judicial clarification is the one that provides constitutional guidance to the citizenry.

Are the citizens of a free and democratic republic, allowed to record their law enforcement officials, in action? These police personnel are entrusted with a broad range of discretionary powers and they provide the security for the people of this nation, but are they immune to being recorded?

The questions of interference are clear; restricting the police from performing their duties is wholly unacceptable, as are attempts to video undercover or stealth based investigations. The issue is, if in no way a hindrance to the lawful fulfillment of their responsibilities, can an American citizen videotape the police?

For those who choose to ponder this question without resolution, it is suggested to consider in what other country is this even a debate?

That is not a lightly posed query: it goes to the heart of the answer.

If America is to remain free, a nation of laws, then no one, especially those entrusted with the safety of municipalities across this great nation, should be allowed to remain immune from those laws.

As our founders wisely instructed us, if we do not enforce the laws for all, we cannot enforce them for one, and that is a first step to the dissolution of the greatest democratic republic the world has ever known.

A Moment in Time

(ed. Note:all identifying information  has been purposely removed as to protect the individuals identities and privacy: their names are not germane to the bigger issues being discussed)

The United States has endured societal changes, political upheavals, governmental scandals and times of national grief, yet as a nation has never lost her fundamental identity.

Americans are no better than citizens of any other nation; there is no unique human chromosome that delineates Americans from anyone else.

What sets the American people apart is the simple fact that they are free to express themselves in a myriad of serious and comical ways under the auspices of the United States Constitution.

If time capsules were created for every generation of this nations’ history, there would be dramatic changes and yet a sense of comforting continuity.

To that end, there have been several little noticed events of the past few weeks that would merit inclusion into any manner of time capsule to demonstrate to our posterity where America as a people were at the first decade or so of the worlds third millennium.

To wit:

A federal lawsuit brought by three players who were disqualified from the 2008 Gay Softball World Series because of their perceived heterosexuality has been settled out of court. The sum was undisclosed, but part of the settlement includes getting their second-place team trophy back.

In 2008 a team was kicked out of the 2008 North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance softball world series for using non-gay ringers. The men filed the federal lawsuit against the NAGAAA last year, claiming they had been discriminated against because they were bisexual, not gay. They also said that they were subjected to embarrassing questions by a tournament committee trying to determine if they were, in fact, gay.

Two were determined to be gay, but the organization said the men were evasive or refused to answer questions about their sexuality.

The men said they weren’t given the option of stating outright that they were bisexual, even though the organization considered bisexual players to be gay for roster purposes. They and their team were disqualified. One official involved in the decision commented, “This is not a bisexual world series. This is a gay world series.”

The team was from San Francisco, and the event was in Seattle. Despite the settlement, the NAGAAA says it will continue its limit on heterosexual players.

A second news story went as follows:

A Colorado man who is serving a nearly 11-year sentence for kidnapping a newlywed Kansas couple, stealing a vehicle and fleeing from authorities in 2009, is now trying to sue that couple for breach of contract.

In his lawsuit, the 25-year-old criminal contends that after breaking into the couples Topeka-area home while fleeing police, he and the couple reached a legally binding, oral contract that they would hide him for an unspecified amount of money. The kidnapper, who is representing himself, is seeking $235,000.

"As a result of the plaintiffs breech (sic) of contract, I, the defendant suffered a gunshot to my back, which almost killed me. The hospital bills alone are in excess of $160,000, which I have no way to pay," he wrote in his civil suit filed last month in Shawnee County District Court.

In Sept. 2009, he led authorities in a chase that ended with his crashing a stolen vehicle into the couple’s yard.

He was wanted for questioning about the murder of Colorado man who had been found beaten to death in a motel earlier that month.

The couple said that they were held at knifepoint, and a neighbor told The Topeka Capital-Journal that the young couple was able to gain their kidnapper's trust "by eating Cheetos and drinking Dr. Pepper with him while watching the movie 'Patch Adams.'"

The couple was able to escape unharmed after their tormentor fell asleep only to be awakened by police. While being ordered to lie face down, a Topeka officer's rifle accidentally discharged and shot the criminal in the back.

According to a report by The Topeka Capital-Journal, the breach of contract suit was filed in response to a suit filed by the couple seeking $75,000 for home intrusion and causing emotional duress.

The couple is asking the judge to dismiss the suit.

A third news story reported as follows:

A west Georgia business owner is stirring up controversy with signs he posted on his company's trucks, for all to see as the trucks roll up and down roads, highways and interstates:

"New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone."

"Can't afford it," explained the employer Tuesday evening. "I've got people that I want to hire now, but I just can't afford it. And I don't foresee that I'll be able to afford it unless some things change in D.C."

He said he put up the signs, and first posted pictures of the signs on his personal Facebook page, six months ago, and he said he received mostly positive reaction from people, "about 20-to-one positive."

But for some reason, one of the photos went viral on the Internet.

And the reaction has been so intense, pro and con, he's had to have his phones disconnected because of the non-stop calls, and he's had to temporarily shut down his company's website because of all the traffic crashing the system.

"The way the economy's running, and the way my business has been hampered by the economy, and the policies of the people in power, I felt that it was necessary to voice my opinion, and predict that I wouldn't be able to do any hiring," he said.

He did receive some unexpected attention not long after he put up his signs and Facebook photos. He said someone, and he thinks he knows who it was, reported him to the FBI as a threat to national security. He said the accusation filtered its way through the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and finally the Secret Service.

Agents interviewed him.

"The Secret Service left here, they were in a good mood and laughing," the company owner said. "I got the feeling they thought it was kind of ridiculous, and a waste of their time."

In a time when Americans are bombarded by the popular media outlets with news heralding political gridlock, potential financial ruin for the nation, and how polarized the American electorate seems to be as shown by ‘recent polls’, the Madison Conservative offers these three above noted news stories to bring a sense of calm and reassurance about Americas’ future.

To wit:

What other nation, ever, has allowed its courts to be used to settle questions on the appropriate level of sexual orientation one has relative to a sporting event, allowed a criminal to sue his victims for wounds incurred during an act of violence, or freely allowed one of its citizens to use his business to so publicly express his disagreement with the most powerful man on the planet?

These stories may sound absurd, comical, or overall insignificant, but they do speak directly to a people flourishing under the model of democratic self rule. They exemplify how Americans choose to use their liberties, freedoms and exert their right to a certain type of American individualism.

That fact is worthy enough to put into a time capsule for our posterity, and one we should be proud to represent to ourselves and our contemporaries around the world.

No matter your position on these news stories, they should serve as a reminder that Americas’ future, as always, is bright

We the people!

The "System" & the 536

In the aftermath of the public folly that was the ‘super-committee’ it was perhaps milliseconds after that committee publicly announced their failure that the politicians entrusted with the fiscal health of the nation and their accompanying media flacks began their partisan assaults on the reasons for the collapse of the process.

There was little if any talk relative to the fact that the entire concept of the ‘super-committee’ was unconstitutional and thus had it indeed processed any viable options, the next game would be to assault it within the judicial arm of the government.

There was little discussion that the men and women elected to the highest offices in the land, a sum total of 536 elected representatives of the people – (435 members of the house, 100 members of the senate and the president) – could not apply themselves to solving the problem, but rather engage in partisan sniping whose sole effect seemed to reassure their position within their elective base.

Dismissing all this nonsensical ranting amidst political cowardice and ineptitude bordering on the truly stupid, what should alarm the American people is what was represented as the underlying problem at hand by the aforementioned politicians and media:

Their claim was that ‘the system’ – or in other words American democratic self-rule- was ‘broken’, and ‘no longer was working’.

Forgoing the absolute ignorance and insult of that claim, the American people should be fearful when the 536 most powerful people in our government begin making this type of obtuse case in order to hide their massive level of incompetence.

The aforementioned ‘system’ is governed by a single document; the United States Constitution. The question thus begs to be asked and answered:

Is it their stance that the Constitution has failed to provide the structure of successful government, and are they then proposing to amend, alter or outright discard that august document in order to make the act of governing less about making the hard choices within a strict set of guidelines and more about their personal beatification amongst a narrow swath of the electorate?

Democratic self rule is all about making the hard choices; there is more than sufficient blame to pass around as to make blame an irrelevant point at this juncture.

It is inconceivable that 536 people believe the American populace unable to withstand the results of fair and honest choices made for the well being of the nation as a whole.

The American people havewithstood the stresses of a Civil War, a war that pitted brother against brother. This nation made the monumental personal sacrifices needed in order to defeat the evil that was at the heart of World War II.

These battles were fought and won within the rigid structure and guidance of the United States Constitution. During those tough times there was never a populist movement decrying that the Constitution, the ‘system’ was broken, flawed or otherwise unequal to the tasks at hand.

The fault and the flaws are with this crop of elected officials.

The American electorate can and must fix this.

They only need to research the issues and vote accordingly.

Such acts will show the 536 that the system is working just fine; they, however, are not and have just been replaced, according to the workings of the system

Let freedom ring.

H.R. 822

The axiom at hand states that the first requirement for tyranny to infect a nation is an apathetic populace, followed by an electorate that acquiesces to unquestioned policies purported to be enacted for the greater good.

The founders and framers believed deeply that the protections afforded a free press under the first Amendment to the United States Constitution would be the first, strongest and best bulwark in keeping tyranny at bay.

The current mass media conduits should be ashamed.

A little noticed piece of congressional legislation went almost uncommented on by most media outlets, and almost completely unnoticed by the electorate at large, sadly at their own peril.

Once again, the framework of the Constitution is under assault under the guise of protecting the public, when the reality is that freedom and liberty are being subjugated by the ignorance of our elected officials.

To wit:

H.R. 822: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 intends to “amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State”.  In other words, there would be an accepted national law regarding weapons possession superseding individual state legislation.

This bill passed Nov 16, 2011 in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 272 Ayes, 154 Nays, 7 Present.

Putting aside the almost comical outrage that seven elected officials could somehow vote ‘present’, in other words take no stand on the issue, and ignoring the second amendment concerns relative to such legislation, the critical issue herein is that it appears few members of Congress are familiar with the tenth amendment.

The tenth amendment to the Constitution reads, in total, as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

That is short, to the point, and wholly unambiguous. The framers put this language into their guiding document for a reason. Read it again and understand that it goes to the heart of this matter, and shows how the aforementioned legislation is indicative of the slow but steady assault upon the Constitution.

Consider:

New York State has strict restrictions on firearm possession. It is amongst the most stringent in the country. The right to bear arms is not prohibited in New York; it IS tightly regulated, as are the laws governing firearm possession in California.

The laws in Florida are considered amongst the most lax in the nation. This is not an issue of right or wrong, better or worse. The fact is that it is easier to possess a weapon in Florida than in New York. The citizens of each respective state have made these choices by electing those to office who hold these views.

There are states that require formalized training before permits are issued, other have age requirements. Some states have mere age and felony conviction restrictions.

These are laws unique to each state. Some states do have reciprocal laws with other states, but again, such decisions are made by each individual state, according to the demands of their specific electorate.

The federal government can have national restrictions and regulations for weapons possession for the areas of their specific responsibilities, but this assault upon the American electorate is dangerous.

This is not about the second amendment, or even a states rights issue. This is about the permeating effects of a federal government run amok, being guided by politicians without a cogent and cohesive understanding of why the Constitution was framed and written the way it was.

The federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction on state weapons possession and thus should have no voice in such matters.

It is lazy and complacent to structure this as an issue of public safety; it is not. This legislation merely makes it easier for the federal government to involve itself in matters for which it has not been granted constitutional authority.

If the American electorate wishes to have stricter or more relaxed regulations for their state, it should be handled at the ballot box, not instituted by national fiat.

The tenth amendment exists to safeguard America and should be respected as such. To ignore it ‘for the public good’ is nothing more than the recipe for tyranny.

Unforseen Consequences?

The United States Constitution is flawed. There is little, if any, debate on that point. The framers and the founders knew their new nations guiding document would need to be revised and refined as time went by, and they put in place mechanisms to do just that.

The greatest aspect of that august document however is that it set in place a detailed, well reasoned and well thought out series of processes for the act of self governance that have successfully guided this nation for over two hundred and twenty years.

Those acts of intelligent foresight are under assault and with it the foundations of American democracy.

The rhetoric of shrill shrieking nonsense that now encapsulates the discourse of the body politic shows that the fundamental intellectual principles of the Constitution are being blatantly ignored at the cost of the freedoms we were given by our founding fathers. While imperfect, the reasoning for constructing the Constitution as it is shows that the principle of unforeseen circumstances has always been at the forefront of addressing its imperfections. Save Prohibition, there have been no hasty, capricious changes during the aforementioned two hundred and twenrty years.

Three events this week have shown just how ignorant and sadly outright stupid our elected officials have been in ignoring the rule of unforeseen consequences in forming particular policies that perhaps seemed correct at the time but with a minimal amount of thought would never have been accepted and implemented.

To wit:

Under the guise of cleaning money out of the electoral process, the theory of public financing of the process has become somewhat in vogue, but consider this stark reality:

The Republican and Democratic parties have each received nearly $18 million in taxpayer money for next year's political conventions and could receive another infusion of cash by early next year. 

The sums were reported this week by the Federal Election Commission and show how public financing for presidential elections has grown over the years -- though the political parties also raise copious private money for the conventions.  A basic understanding of the corrupting influence of cash in politics could have, and should now avoid this nonsense.

The Secret Service is entrusted with protecting our leaders, amongst its other duties and responsibilities. There is no realisitc argument to be made for denying these leaders such safeguards and security oprotections, but consider this by product of that thought process:

Vice President Joseph R. Biden, acting now as the landlord, can count on at least 12 more months of rental income from the agency that protects his life.

Federal spending records show the U.S. Secret Service approved a purchase order on Nov. 2 to pay Mr. Biden $26,400 for agents to stay at a cottage on lakefront property he owns in Delaware.

Edwin M. Donovan, special agent in charge at the Secret Service's Office of Public Affairs in Washington, said Mr. Biden isn’t receiving all that money at once. Instead, he said, the purchase order shows plans by the Secret Service to pay Mr. Biden $2,200 per month for another year. Was this considered in the framing of protecting our leadership, and who can condone this practice?

The right of free assembly and the right to protest government policies is in many way a uniquely American concept. No argument can be made to quell that right, and none should ever be offered. The “Occupy Wall Street’ protests taking place across the nation are an example of the citizenry looking for a redress of their grievances, but sadly our elected officials are choosing impotence to enforce the rules and regulations for such protests for fear of political backlash. But consider this example, symbolic of hundreds of similar situations occurring concurrently to the protests, which amongst their issues is the rising unemployment rate:

A New York City cafe cut its staff by nearly 25 percent last week because of lost business due to the ongoing

Occupy Wall Street

protests.

Marc Epstein, owner of the Milk Street Cafe at 40 Wall Street in lower Manhattan, said he had to cut 21 of the 97 members of his staff on Thursday and Friday after seeing sales plummet by 30 percent in the six weeks since the protests began. He's also been forced to slash the restaurant operating hours, moving up his closing time from 9 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Mondays through Thursdays.

While these are only examples, the underlyinmg fact is inescapable; either we take the time to follow the processes laid out within the text of the Constitution and properly deliberate governmental policies, no matter the scope or scale, and regardless of the level of government, or these examples will become the norm.

That eventuality would signal the Visigoths coming over the hills of Rome, thus ending America as the founders intended.

Two Days in November

It is perhaps by unique coincidence or American design that two essential events happen within ten days of each other in early November, each and every year.

Those two events are Election Day and Veterans Day and given the state of governments on most every level and the national discourse in the body politic, this particular convergent happenstance should be cause for reflection.

A brief history of what was originally called Armistice Day – the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, signaling the end to the ‘war to end all wars’ – perhaps is in order.

In November 1919, President Wilson proclaimed November 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day with the following words: "To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…"

Acknowledging the service of all Americans who wore the uniform of their nation subsequently apparently became a minor inconvenience to some elected officials and thus a circuitous route was taken for the holiday subsequently named ‘Veterans Day’.

To wit:

The Uniform Holiday Bill (Public Law 90-363 (82 Stat. 250)) was signed on June 28, 1968, and was intended to ensure three-day weekends for Federal employees by celebrating four national holidays on Mondays: Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Columbus Day. It was thought that these extended weekends would encourage travel, recreational and cultural activities and stimulate greater industrial and commercial production. Many states did not agree with this decision and continued to celebrate the holidays on their original dates.

The first Veterans Day under the new law was observed with much confusion on October 25, 1971. It was quite apparent that the commemoration of this day was a matter of historic and patriotic significance to a great number of our citizens, and so on September 20th, 1975, President Gerald R. Ford signed Public Law 94-97 (89 Stat. 479), which returned the annual observance of Veterans Day to its original date of November 11, beginning in 1978.

Regulated by the United States Constitution and thus immune from the meddling hands of bureaucrats, Election Day in the United States of America is the Tuesday following the first Monday in November.

The fortuitous nature of these two days falling so close together on the calendar should give us pause to remember when standing in the isolation of the voting booth that the right to vote, to have a say in our future, is ours solely because of the Americans who have, are, and will fight to protect and defend the greatest democracy the world has ever known.

The Madison Conservative does not promote any candidate or political faction; it asks only that come Tuesday you exercise your right and responsibility as a United States Citizen to take an hour out of your day to have your voice heard.

Those who have worn the uniform of your country and taken up arms in her defense deserve no less.

Hate

The fundamental rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution are under assault and the electorate at large is aiding and abetting that fact by a woeful lack of understanding on what their rights truly are. The Constitution was written and enacted to limit the power of the government and to guarantee the citizens the right to free expression, be it by speech or publication.

In the name of ignorance and fear, those precious rights are being surrendered under the guise of tolerance.

The terms ‘hate crime’ and ‘hate speech’ have become part of the accepted lexicon of the self described but self delusional ‘enlightened’ political class. The support of these terms is in fact nothing more than ignorance run amok and the American people must stand firm against this sacrificing of their rights.

Consider exactly what has happened under the guise of ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’.

“Hate speech’ is currently the accepted vernacular to dismiss unpopular points of view. If a citizen of any status takes an unpopular position on a political class and accompanying media flacks sacred cow, they are not debated on the merits; they are labeled as purveyors of hate speech. This is nothing more than intimidation and low level thuggery. It exposes the lack of intellectual heft by those who choose to inject fear and hatred into the discourse of the body politic. Hate by definition goes to an internal mental process; labeling speech as hate goes to the arrogance of declaring that ones knows the working of another’s mind. It also signals to those who would defend the minority opinion from doing so, lest they find themselves tarred and feathered by ignorance. Free speech is a basic tenet of American democracy and in the name of political correctness it is being sacrificed on the altar of ignorance. The question begs to be asked; how soon until there is no longer any dissent in the national discourse, lest it be deemed to be hate speech. The arena of ideas is indeed a fierce competition, but it must be fought amongst equals, not the lions against the Christians.

The even more alarming precedent being set is that of ‘hate crime’. The act itself is apparently not enough to warrant sufficient punishment; the government has now decided that if it can show ones mental intent, there will be additional punishment levied.

In short, thought itself is sufficient grounds for additional punishment. The narrow minded and ignorant amongst the electorate feel that there is some manner of justice is labeling crimes as “hate’ crimes.

Is there such a thing as a loving or friendly crime? We should look instead to increasing the punishments for crime and remove the governmental thought police from being involved in the prosecutorial process. How soon will it be until those in authority will add “hate” to any legal infraction solely in order to breed fear amongst the population?

This is not mere rhetoric; every tyrannical government in history has sowed its seeds of gaining power by first creating fear of prosecution against some manner of societal undesirable.

The American people must thwart this attempt of circumventing the Constitution for short term political correctness. The framers and the founders entrusted us with the responsibility of defending our freedoms; we must not betray that trust, or surely our ancestors and our posterity will never forgive our collective cowardice.

Nazi

A Personal Commentary

As has been previously mentioned, there occurs from time to time an event that does not specifically deal with issues directly tied to the intent of the Madison Conservative, but nonetheless demand to be addressed in the form of a personal commentary. This week is just such an instance.

The actress Susan Sarandon this week referred to the Pope as ‘that Nazi’. While indeed a wholly inappropriate and insipid statement, the widely held principle of “I may hate what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” must be adhered to. Ms. Sarandon has the right to express herself in any manner that does not put the public at large in danger – the “you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater” limitation on free speech.

This week also saw the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Kaddafi, one of the few remaining despots in power. Kaddafi was in the mold of previous mass murderers who ascended to power for personal glory, wealth and power and saw their people as merely tools to maintain their stranglehold on that power.

Kaddafi was a heinous human being who slaughtered tens of thousand, but he was no Nazi.

In recent years, President Bush has been labeled as Hitler, and President Obama has been displayed in caricature with a Hitler mustache. Opposing members of both political extremes have labeled their opposition as using ‘storm trooper’ tactics, or using “Gestapo” type methods in attempting to push through a specific piece of legislation.

This is beyond absurd and borders on the sickening; if we do not learn the lessons of history, we are sadly bound to repeat them.

General Eisenhower, when entering liberated concentration camps, allowed the press to take as many pictures as needed and forced the inhabitants of the neighboring towns to come through the camps to see what had occurred directly in their midst. He did so with the specific intention of forcing history to acknowledge what had happened, so that no one could ever claim the camps had not happened, or were not as bad as had been claimed.

He was a man wise beyond his time.

The Nazis collectively descended to the lowest form of humanity; they created the methodology of the furnaces to help exterminate an entire race and any person they felt was an undesirable was sent to their death in the hope of ‘cleansing’ the state. Hitler had people executed slowly and films taken of the torture so that he could watch them at his leisure. The Nazis and the Gestapo in general, created a wave of fear and oppression not seen previously for millennia.

They butchered human beings for sport; they desecrated the human body under the guise of ‘medical experiments’.

One may disagree with another’s politics or feel the need to make some manner of political statement, as in Ms. Sarandon’s’ case, but can the case of equity be made that President Bush or President Obama have done anything to warrant the comparisons to the Nazis?

Language is a delicate thing and those in a position of using it to a mass audience must be wary of how they use it.

We as a people must speak out against the flip manner that elected officials disparage each other; we can disagree on policy but how does one walk back a comparison to a Nazi with the full understanding of what that means?

Imagine the current “ Occupy Wall Street” protests under a Nazi regime. The protesters would be carted away and butchered for the ‘good of the state’.

Freedom comes with responsibilities and we must hold people accountable for their actions and their words.

We owe our posterity no less and must accept no less from ourselves.

The Lesson to Learn

“Congress shall make no law …abridging …right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Benjamin Franklin once wryly observed that in describing and defining a populist uprising it was only in the third person, their revolution, that such an event was illegal and should be dealt with harshly by the subject government. It was in the first person, our revolution, that such movements were legal and justified and thus by definition were to be embraced by the population at large.

The founders and the framers of the Constitution had seen the effects firsthand of a government attempting to thwart a revolution by the populace and insured, by the implementation of the Constitution,  that no such action would ever befall the citizens of their fledgling democracy. The hard fought lessons are there within our founding documents; we must, as history tells us, remember to learn its lessons or fall victim to those same lessons.

In was passes as the cockeyed world of political reality, the protests currently under way nationwide beneath the umbrella of “Occupy Wall Street” are endlessly labeled as either crackpot anti-Tea Party movements or heralded as true populist uprisings looking to shine the light on the inequities of the American capitalist society.

While there does indeed  exist  intelligent, supportive arguments on both sides of this nonsensical debate, there has been an almost complete absence by the body politic and the media as a whole shedding light on what should be the corollary argument to both sides. The current state of discourse on public policy has descended into nothing more than shrill shrieking blather on both sides and their co-conspiratorial media flacks; the commonality in this debate should be a point that reaffirms our unique solidarity as a nation and act as a fresh starting point in doing the peoples business.

To wit:

The rallies in support and opposition that are being held both in lower Manhattan and simultaneously nationwide are being held and therein lies the historically wonderful truth of America.

That fact does not seem to resonate with either the participants themselves or the electorate watching the events unfold on the televisions. These are not riots; the military has not been engaged to suppress the marches. Pundits are free to support or condemn the protests without fear of government retribution. The citizenry are free to publicly express their position on the issue without fear of disappearing in the night.

There are protests currently underway in Syria; they are marked by blood in the streets. The images from Libya show not a peaceful populace protest, but rather tanks and mortars in the streets.

The founding fathers gave us a most precious gift within the first amendment; the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of their grievances against that government.

“We the people” and “of the people, by the people, and for the people” are not simplistic slogans or mere political catchphrases. They are our birthright, and if we do not honor and protect them, and allow them to live and thrive, we shall surely lose them. We have evidence today around the world that speaking out can come with the ultimate price being paid; America will not join those ranks, but we must be ever vigilant to actively protect and exercise our freedoms.

If we do not, they shall surely perish from the face of the earth, and that must not be our epitaph to our posterity.