Current Events: January 2007 Archives

Try this Bizarro World scenario on for size. On January 3rd, four Tennessee National Guardsmen, troops that, per the Army Creed, “Stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat,” were manning an observation post on the Arizona-Mexico border. In as much as Arizona is one of the several states, this boundary is also the U.S.-Mexico border; the porousness of which these troops were there to address.

The Guardsmen were approached by 6-8 armed men, who appeared to be wearing protective body armor. The Guardsmen, in the finest tradition of the U.S. Army, radioed the Border Patrol, apprised them of the situation and then pulled back. Pull back being another word for retreat. These soldiers retreated fromt the border in the face of armed intruders. Subsequently, the Border Patrol was unable to locate said armed intruders. They are perhaps now employed in California, picking frozen oranges.

If the facts as they have been presented are accurate, it is enough to make you want to saw your own head off with a butter knife. This is so preposterous, it is difficult to formulate any commentary. These soldiers are not responsible for this ludicrous situation; as has been reported, they were merely following orders. Perhaps an addendum should be added to the Nuremburg principle; not only is a soldier obligated to disobey an illegal order, they are also obligated to disobey a ridiculous order.

The individual most culpable in this travesty is the president. Maybe someone should inform him that his Svengali, Vicente Fox, is no longer president of Mexico and that it is permissible to enforce United States territorial boundaries. It might also be mentioned to the president that there are reasons the Right has become lukewarm in its support of the Iraq war. One reason is that Americans tend to be less than sanguine about their soldiers serving as nothing more than target dummies for rag-tag Third World barbarians. They prefer to risk their troops and treasure in the process of destroying the enemy. Conservatives also observe the little charade being played out on the border. They conclude that, in the end, the president isn’t really serious about protecting America.

What other answer is there to explain the farce that we call border security?

Cross-posted at http://www.laconicblog.blogspot.com

Contrary to the belief of many of our fellow citizens, the purpose of the United States Constitution is not to grant us rights. Our rights, given to us by our Creator, are inalienable. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government. Look at the language of the Bill of Rights. It is chock full of “shall not” and “shall make no;” all of which refer to the United States government.

Our explicit rights, that is, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are contingent wholly upon our implicit right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The intent of the Second Amendment is to preserve and guarantee, not grant, a pre-existing right; again, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Arms, by which we mean guns, allow the free citizen to exercise self-defense; to protect one’s self from predators of various stripes, be they criminal malefactors or rapacious government. St. George Tucker—Revolutionary War officer and later U.S. District Judge—in his Blackstone’s Commentaries of 1803 wrote that “the right of self-defense is the first law of nature.”

The Fourth Amendment—“The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violated”—would be hollow prose without the Second Amendment to give it teeth. This concept was recognized very early by the Framers. Noah Webster wrote in 1787,

“Before any standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States…[The people] will instantly inspire the inclination to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

This sentiment was expressed best, perhaps, by one of Virginia’s favorite sons. In 1788, Patrick Henry wrote, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches this jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”

Certainly guns have enormous recreational uses and add hugely to the sporting life of our people. But the intent of the Framers was not to safeguard the rights of target shooters and duck hunters. It was to preserve our freedoms from an aggressive government. Keep in mind that the Framers were insurrectionists. They were well acquainted with the realities of oppressive rule and were determined to give the citizens of this republic the tools necessary to preserve and protect their freedoms.

The Constitution is a document of unique concepts and principles. But it will provide the framework for the Rule of Law in this country only so long as we remain an armed citizenry and do not allow ourselves to become unarmed serfs.

Cross-posted at http://www.laconicblog.blogspot.com