Tuesday, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:22 PM
WORK TOGETHER To Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution, For The Good Of America, NOW: According To This Plan - And Get The Job Done By August 2013.
The 2nd Amendment is not an antique which is discarded
because of its age. The 2nd Amendment is not "outdated".
This type of viewpoint on the 2nd Amendment is the product
of politically correct propaganda by public educators which have
been propagating this viewpoint for nearly 100 years.
We don't table parts of the Constitution as archaic, on the
speculative advice of fabricators. There is no "expiration date"
on the 2nd Amendment, or the Third Amendment, or any other
part of the US Constitution - and indeed, the Third Amendment -
a part of the Constitution that was once regarded as a laughable
relic of the 18th century, has new and urgent relevance because of the
use of computer snooping, radar and other microwave technology,
long-range cameras, satellite photography, TV cameras and drones
by Government and papparazzi; and the Third Amendment, far from
being a vestigal throwback, has now moved to the forefront of
overdue importance. In fact, the US Supreme Court in recent
decades has barked up the wrong tree in affirming the
"right to privacy", in invoking the First Amendment - it is the
THIRD Amendment which can and must now be invoked in
restoring the shredded right to privacy.
The 2nd Amendment is now just as much in force and is
just as much the Law of the Land today as it was on
December 15, 1791 when it was first ratified.
If someone doesn't agree with the 2nd Amendment, or
the Sixteenth Amendment, or the 22nd Amendment (as
Ronald Reagan expressed disagreement with shortly
into his 2nd term) the course of action recommended
by the Fifth Article of the Constitution is not to spew
propaganda throughout the public schools and colleges
as to how that part of the Constitution has somehow
lapsed with time or "modern conditions". The only way
to go is to AMEND the Constitution to repeal the
unwanted Amendment, Article or section, and to
restore and affirm which, if any, words in the section
to be repealed, may be kept. For example, the
21st Amendment (ratified on December 5, 1933)
repealed Prohibition (the 18th Amendment, ratified
on January 16, 1919 and put into effect on
January 16, 1920.) If the President or his advisors
or the American people have a grudge against the
2nd Amendment, it can be repealed; but until it is
repealed the President is sworn to uphold it; and
the President is actually forbidden by his Oath of Office
from participating in any effort to repeal any part of
The Constitution of the United States is the Law
of the Land, and it was meant to be obeyed;
especially by people in Government. It is
dangerous to interpret the Constitution according
to "living document", loose-cannon-on-deck standards
which are arbitrarily imposed by any Johnny-come-lately
bureaucrat or judge with "wide discretionary powers".
The Constitution is best interpreted according to the
precedents of its own time, which best indicate what the
Framers actually meant.)
Now, let us take a look at the meaning of the
2nd Amendment in the context from which it
The Articles of Confederation
Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1, 1781.
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
... New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union ....
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
(That part of the Articles of Confederation has often been misrepresented in the flawed teachings of public educators as "too weak" and "lack of a strong central government," and this has been cited by these educators and those misguided by them, as the reason why it was necessary to form the Constitutional Convention. Actually, Article II morphed back into the Constitution in 1791 - and it is clearly recognizable in rephrased and amended form as the Tenth Amendment.)
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
(The "severally and individually" language here employed in the boldface type, underlined sections indicate clearly that the term "United States", in the Constitution, does not invariably mean the "Federal Government", and does not always exclude the States as individualities; although there are some contexts where the term "United States", in the US Constitution, clearly DOES indicate the Federal Government exclusive of any particular State government or capacity (such as the first use in Article One, Section Six, thefirst use in Article Six, but not any subsequent use in Article Six; in the Tenth Amendment; the first use in Amendment 11 but not the next use in the same Amendment, and in Amendment 15. In the Pardons and Reprieves clause in Article Two, Section Two of the US Constitution, which gives the President the power to grant pardons and reprieves in the context of "offenses against the United States," the Constitution is best interpreted according to the prevailing and likely language usages and immediate circumstances of the time of the Framers; which may not necessarily be the language of today's United States Government Manual or today's US Government Printing Office in the latest edition. The Framers didn't write these documents, and never had an opportunity to read or review them; and are not in a position to rise up out of the grave to correct some of the rash assertions which are intermixed within the truths therein presented.
The language of Article Three and Section Six of the US Constitution
clearly indicates that offenses against the law, such as might be as in the
cases giving rise to pardons and reprieves would most likely be either
violations of State laws; or violations against the US Constitution committed
by State governments. These violations would, of course, not be affirmable
by an absence of a Presidential pardon and reprieve; and such offenses
by States against the Constitution necessitate a pardon and reprieve not on
behalf of someone actually committing an offense, but on behalf of
someone who has been victimized by "Offences against the United States"
which arise in the form of Constitutional violations committed by
State, county, municipal or township Governments. Non-Government
entities such as face book also repeatedly violate the First Amendment
under the cloak of a new form of Government-within-a-Government
self-allocation of authority in the context of constructing an
electronic communications utility - and all First Amendment protections
should be unabridged in this context whether face book is privately
or publicly owned. If face book cannot resist the temptation to abridge
freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of peaceable
assembly and the right to petition, then perhaps it is time for the
Government to nationalize face book so that these freedoms can be protected.
In the absence of such a last resort, perhaps the President can grant
an ongoing blanket pardon and reprieve to all US Citizens who have been blocked,
warned, or otherwise censored by Facebook or change dot org, (etc.)
with regard to petitions and peaceable assembly. These exercises
of censorship are initiated on the basis of pretexts which are usually
falsehoods, and are motivated by a fascistic impulse to silence or
smother political activists, dissenters or whistleblowers. Perhaps
face book is being phished by Government employees of the US
Government or some other government of another country which
has an agenda to regulate the free speech of Americans. This
regulation of speech has no place in any public context, even
if that public context is by way of a private corporation big
enough to muzzle freedom of speech on a widespread basis.
The only proper technique for private regulation of speech is within the
context of parliamentary procedure; and neither face book
nor any other similar private corporation providing active, ongoing
electronic communications (such as a phone company) can properly
impose such restrictions; these restrictions can only be imposed by the
administrators of face book groups and other similar sites. Face book
administrators do not have the right to act as a giant Sergeant-at-Arms
for the entire United States or the entire world. Nor do they have the
moral right to drum up one new technique per day to imprison the petitions and
ideas of activists and creative thinkers on face book, and jump on top
of socially constructive creative thinkers at the drop of a hat; while at
the same time giving the purveyors of obscene material and obscenities
and chronic insulters of private individuals, free rein.
(Text of the Articles of Confederation, continued...)
Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the united States, or either of them.
The boldface, underlined sections clearly indicate that citizenship in the United States, as originally defined according to the Articles of Confederation, did not include "paupers, vagabonds, fugitives from justice" and slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment nullified this section of the Articles of Confederation, on July 9, 1868. Public educators have taught hundreds of millions of Americans, since the 1920s, that the Articles of Confederation was superseded and nullified by the Constitution, as soon as the Constitution went into force.
Actually, the words "in Order to form a more perfect Union...", in the Preamble of the Constitution, specify clearly that the Articles of Confederation are AFFIRMED by the Constitution, not repudiated, except precisely in those sections which revise the wording in comparable clauses and sections and articles. For example, the Articles of Confederaton describes the Union as "perpetual". The Constitution doesn't mention anything about perpetuity directly; but simply affirms perpetuity in the words "more perfect." Otherwise, the words "more perfect" would make no sense, because if something is already "perfect", then changing it to "more perfection" is a logical impossibility; and a thing would have to be left as-is in order for it to remain perfect.
The meaning of "We the People...form a more perfect Union"; as found in the Preamble to the US Constitution, is simply this: "The Articles of Confederation are not being repudiated, but only clarified and fine-tuned." Otherwise, the phrase "more perfect" amounts to a non sequitir. The Founders didn't create non sequitirs in the Constitution. They created the Law of the Land, and the Preamble is a part of that law and is meant to have legal force. Indeed, the first seven words of the Preamble, together with the first clause of Article Four, Section Four, define the United States as a federative Republic.
(Text of the Articles of Confederation, continued....)
Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress...
(the rest of this also matches Article One, Section Six, paragraph one, sentence two, of the US Constitution.)
This is the first interstate mention of "freedom of speech" as a precedent for the relevant clauses
in the US Constitution, which are the following: Article One, Section Six
"for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place",
as well as the First Amendment mention of "freedom of speech".
(Text of the Articles of Confederation, continued...)
Article VI. No State, without the consent of the united States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any personholding any office of profit or trust under the united States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
(This, as well as the following clause, are immediately recognizable as Article One, Section Ten, first paragraph, US Constitution, except that the comparable part in the US Constitution adds this: "No State shall....grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, coin Money, emit Bills of Credit, make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts, pass any Bill of Attainder, (or) ex post facto Law, or Law inparing the Obligation of Contracts....")
(The text of Article Six of the Articles of Confederation, continued...)
No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the united States in congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.
No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
This is the Articles of Confederation precedent for the 2nd Amendment. Let us look at
what the 2nd Amendment means in the immediate context of the language of the times:
The National Guard is referred to in the boldface, non-underlined part preceding the
boldface semicolon. The "well-regulated and disciplined militia" are NOT the National
Guard, but are private organizations. The people who are whining about the NRA
defending the 2nd Amendment (and these people seem to have as little respect for the First
Amendment as for the 2nd, unless it is exclusively their own First Amendment rights which
they are concerned about) are on very weak ground - the wording of Article VI of the
Articles of Confederation PRESAGES the NRA and any other private gun club which is "well-
regulated and disciplined." Although Article VI of the Articles of Confederation uses the
term "well-regulated...militia," the language in the Articles which follows that (from the
word "sufficiently" to the word "equipage"); is subsumed and clarified by the
Constitutional clause "being necessary to the security of a free State".
The 2nd Amendment clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed", contains a key term: "the people."
The term "the people" is a COLLECTIVE phrase, not an individual phrase.
The language of the Article VI clause in the Articles of Confederation which
has to do with the "well-regulated ...militia" uses the phrase "in public stores".
This implies a collective readiness and a collective availability. The idea was
never put into effect, to have a first-come, first-serve ammunition and arms
cache available to all citizens in the form of a "gun library". Of course, if it
had been started in the 18th century, and if this language persisted in the
2nd Amendment, we would have to this day "guns on request", financed
at the public expense - most likely in every county seat, "ready for use"
in emergencies. This idea rules out background checks, and is more like,
"We're under attack. Hand me a gun!" Remember, although this idea
was never put into effect, the language shows the thinking which was the
actual foundation for the 2nd Amendment. However, it also reveals one of
the first American failed experiments in collectivism - an idea which never
got off the ground in the first place, because it flies in the face of the
"well-regulated" aspect of the militia. It would be as impossible to have a
well regulated militia with a free-for-all gun library, as it would be to have
well-inspected motor vehicles for everyone if private ownership were
to be abandoned in favor of a public car and truck library of Demolition
Derby specials kept in a public parking lot. Accordingly, the Framers
in the 2nd Amendment abandoned the failed language of the "gun-library"
concept for emergencies, and enacted this guarantee:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This is a PRIVATE right, not a collective right, because the word
"KEEP", implies and clearly means OWNERSHIP by private individuals.
The "well regulated militia" is not a Federal domain, but is a State domain.
The 2nd Amendment clearly uses the word "State". They weren't talking
about the Danzig Free State or "the State" in general, but EACH STATE,
as is clearly indicated in the precedent to the 2nd Amendment, the
language of Article Six of the Articles of Confederation.
The language of the 2nd Amendment begs the question, "Who would infringe
on 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'?" Clearly, the infringement
to be guarded against is primarily Federal. Amendments 9 and 10 confirm
this, and are to be regarded as very important to interpretation of the
2nd Amendment. The language of the Tenth Amendment builds upon
Article Two of the Articles of Confederation in answering this question
too - Article Two of the AOC mandates that the States are to be protected
against expansion of power by "the united States in Congress assembled,"
which is the in continuum precursor to the Federal Government that was
established by the Constitution.
But the Tenth Amendment goes farther than that - it
indicates that "the people" reserve powers against both the States and
the Federal Government in any contest of demarcation of power.
And the 2nd Amendment clearly states that "the people" have the right
to keep and bear Arms. When you add the Tenth Amendment to it, this
2nd Amendment Right to Self-Defense is guaranteed against
both Federal and State infringement (or encroachment).
In fact, the 2nd Amendment should not be repealed or infringed
upon, but broadened by Congress to include the right of people
to keep and bear Arms for self defense which were not invented
yet in the 18th century - this includes electronic arms such as
cellphones (including cellphones with cameras), computers,
laptops, tasers; and such things as Mace, whistling devices,
pagers, Home Alert devices, and automobiles. Whenever
Government confiscates an automobile for any purpose
other than non-fabricated clear and present danger, they
are depriving an individual or a family of the right to eat,
the right to work, the right to safety and the right to
self-defense as well - as well as Third, Fourth and Fifth
Now, we have a President who is trying to beat down the door of the
2nd Amendment, and he has been doing this for four months, ineffectively.
President Obama has understandable motives for doing this. He feels personally
responsible for what happened in Connecticut and Colorado and
Arizona, etc. Five weeks prior to the tragedy in Connecticut, the President
was re-elected with 50.7% of the popular vote - giving him pause
to reflect now more on his legacy than on politics, and then his
legacy is tarnished with this additional tragedy. This motivates the President
to act on this according to the advice of his legal advisors - and the problem
with these advisors is that they have little respect for the Constitution
and more respect for their own little Federal groupthink rulebook
straight out of the ivory tower.
Let us take a look at the political situation: The President has no
particular axe to grind against the Constitution. He took a solemn
Oath of Office to preserve, protect and defend it; and his ivory-tower,
silk-suited Constitution-shredding advisors, whether they know it or not,
are bound by that oath because the President is. These advisors think
they are smarter than everyone else. They make mistakes all the time;
yet they never admit an error, and are never held accountable for
even their worst and most harmful mistakes or crimes. And it is time for
these isolated advisors to back off, and let the President win this one, in a
way which is also a win for We, the people - and a victory for affirmation
of the Constitution.
One example of this "expertise" is the idea that "background checks" to
check for behavioral issues will solve the problem. There is a major
problem with that; and that is the law of unanticipated consequences -
combined with the fact that whenever there is one way in which
Government is entrusted to expand its powers, there are 100 ways
in which they abuse these new powers and become corrupted by them.
This concept of appending psychological background checks monitored
by State and Federal governments and confirmed in official public records
presents two major dangers which should be listed here. A) The first is
that whenever Government, or any of its agencies or affiliated contractors
or any private individual or corporation wielding undue influence on
Government, wants to take property, abuse eminent domain, or silence or
personally destroy a whistleblower, all they have to do is to launch some
phony court action in which the innocent victim and law-abiding citizen
is declared "non compos mentis" - and in which the victim of such
false or malicious charges is basically guilty until proven guilty, and
in which Government affords no way out. There are in fact thousands
of examples of such cases in Pennsylvania alone, hundreds more
in Connecticut (which brags about its "strictest background checks)
and it is a fact that in the United States today, psychology is more
abused on behalf of corrupt interests and against dissidents and
against people whose only crime is their honesty and integrity,
than was the case in Stalinist Russia and perhaps even in Nazi
Germany. One of the newest corrupt interests is the unchallenged
citadel of misanthropic feminism. A man whose only crime is
trying to contact a woman who was trying to pick a fight with him,
can find himself not only on the receiving end of a knowingly false
and deliberately malicious allegation, but jailed and deprived of
his right to keep and bear arms on the word of one witness
who is never cross-examined, never doubted and never questioned
as to her motives or possible connections. Thus rendered vulnerable,
an innocent man can lose his credit, his vehicles, his business,
his home, his livelihood, his reputation, his freedom and his life.
And along that road to his personal destruction awaits the inevitable
psychological evaluation by people who, in truth, are not even
qualified to psychologically evaluate a barking dog or a shreiking cat,
let alone a human being. All these unqualified people really are
is Government contractors paid by piecework, who are financially
motivated to do what they are told and to destroy the reputations
of as many people as possible, in a methodical process - and
there is no guarantee that any of these evaluators would even
pass their own evaluations. B) The second major danger is that
stalkers who gather information on people (especially on the
Internet, which seems to be a growing tendency these days)
will be able to use information to trump up cases against
people of sound mind (especially if these stalkers are officials
or Government bureaucrats, which most of them are; or able
to influence Government clerks and programmers with
money under the table or by planting false information) and
these stalkers will be able to use the trumped-up information
about the mental state of their victims to render their victims
There is one such case of stalking which I know of which has
gone on for almost twenty years, and which has completely
destroyed the identity of the victim to the point where she
can hardly fight back except by telling the truth to people who
really can do very little for her; and such a level of victimization
by cyberstalking can take the sanest person in the world, and
the most innocent and trusting person, and drive them over
the edge - especially when Government not only will not
listen, but CANNOT, due to the falsification of records by
or at the behest of those who are perpetrating malicious attack.
And it is processes such as these that the President is telling us
to trust - because the financial interests which influence his
Administration side with these processes and are coyly blind
to the pitfalls and defects inherent therein; not because this would
really make any American any safer.
The President has good motives and justifiable reasons to try to do
something. He cannot sit there like a dummy, and do nothing except
orate, in the wake of the Connecticut tragedy. Those who say that we
cannot go on doing things the way we have been, are completely right.
Prior to 1962, the United States (except for the Civil War and the
Indian Wars) were characterized by "domestic tranquility". Since
1962, we have averaged one horrible crime, deadly riot or
civilian massacre per year; in a way which exceeds the
level of violence of the past era of lynchings*, Hatfield-McCoy
feuds, Molly Maguire-type union resistance, Wild West
shootouts, and White Citizens Council attacks.
(*Source: Ebony Magazine).
The United States is more violent and less moral since 1963
than during and before that significant year.
Here is my own solution to the problem:
1) The NRA is informing the President that he cannot infringe on the 2nd
Amendment rights of the people to keep and bear arms. The NRA
is right. And the NRA is more than just a lobbying organization.
They have a lot to do with the "well regulated" aspect of "the
militia". And they have a lot to do with the collectivity of "the people"
such as we have seen invoked in the Articles of Confederation, and
affirmed in many respects in the 2nd Amendment. The same is true,
no less, of other gun clubs which are both private and connected with
The solution to this problem, and the answer to the clear call for action,
is for the President to sit down with representatives of the NRA, and
to say to them, "You have stolen the ball out from my court. The
ball is in your court, NRA. You come up with a plan to ensure that
your organization and others like it can do a better job of defining
and regulating the militia in a way that does not infringe on the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms - and I will give you the
authority to carry out that plan in legislation which I will propose
to Congress; after I review your plan. In other words, instead of
giving more gun control power to the Federal Government, I will
give the power to your organization to make sure that the militia
is more "well-regulated" - and that the militia, not the Federal Government,
ensures the security of every free State in the United States by
keeping lethal weaponry out of the hands of individuals who are
dangerous or untrustworthy. I reserve the right to edit or improve
whatever plan you send to me, but I will do my best to present it
to Congress with as few changes as possible, if you will send such
a plan to me within 90 days in as reasonable a form as you can
construct it. I will give you the business card of my chief advisor
or advisors on this issue, and they are at your beck and call 24
hours per day; and I also will be at their beck and call 24 hours
per day. Do we have a deal that we can shake hands on?"
2) In 1962, public prayer, classroom prayer and classroom
Bible readings aloud by teachers or students were a regular
part of opening exercises in public schools and many colleges
as well. In fact, public education in America began with the
Old Deluder Act of Massachusetts, which established a Christian
motive and basis for public schools in the colony; at about the
time Harvard College was also established. Unless the specific
and invoked rights of any teacher or student are actionably or
petitionably harmed according to affidavit, the blanket prohibition
against Bible reading, school prayer and other free exercise of
religion in public schools and publicly funded colleges
is a prohibition which must be challenged and ended; and
this challenge must be mentioned as part of the NRA security
legislation to be presented to the President, and the President
should accept it and submit this to Congress as part of the
proposals to prevent violence in American schools and colleges.
It is common sense that the scriptures of any religion or philosophic
writer, not only the Bible, be included in these religious exercises
of spirituality; and perhaps even atheist authors can be
quoted, as long as there is no objection to any specific reading
or prayer. Perhaps the list of Scriptural or philosophic readings
can be submitted as part of the monthly syllabus; in order to
ensure that there is an opportunity to object to some or all of
the Scriptural or philosophical passages to be read, so that the
religious rights of no one are violated by insults in the Scriptures
of one religion, against other religions. For example, Numbers
31:17-18 or Ezra, chapter 10, or certain portions of the
First and 2nd Epistles to the Thessalonians, and similar passages
in the scriptures of other religious and philosophical writings
would be inadvisable selections. The point is not to proselytize
religiously, but to emphasize the values which built America -
especially the better and more socially constructive ideals
from those values - ideals which have attracted good people of
all religious backgrounds and from no religion too,
to the United States. There is something to be said for
making schools and the general public physically safer
by vigilance in keeping deadly weaponry out of the hands
of those who are either temporarily or chronically unsuited
to have deadly weapons - and that is part of the well-regulated
aspect of the 2nd Amendment. The Federal Government could
not have prevented what happened in Connecticut this past
December 14, 2012; even if the proposed reforms the President
has recently asked for, were to have been in effect at that time.
But a vigilant local NRA chapter could have intervened in time to
save every life that was lost, had they been deputized to do so
by due process of law.
The aspect of long-term social guidance of the entire society
must accompany physical short-term measures assuring
minute-by-minute safety improvements. And the problem
since 1962 has not just been an increase in the level of
privately-held armaments - indeed, part of the problem is
the fact that there has been more restriction of the right
to keep and bear arms. Had this right not been infringed
during the Nixon Administration as a result of airplane
hijackings by people wanting to go to Cuba, there never
would have been any attempt to hijack planes on September
11, 2001 - because the perpetrators of the biggest massacre
in American history could never have been assured that their
plans wouldn't have been stopped in mid-air by a good citizen.
We might have wound up with small holes in the fuselage of an
airplane, instead of bigger holes in the Pentagon, in the New York
skyline, and in a Pennsylvania field.
The major part of the problem of increased violence has little to do
with weaponry or the availability of it, and more to do with incitement;
with inflammatory pharmaceutical behavior-modification drugs and
their unanticipated effects; and with the de-emphasis in spiritual
tone in the minds and hearts of Americans. That de-emphasis began
with the sudden removal of Bible-reading and school prayer from
public schools and colleges in 1962, in the wake of court edicts.
It is time to make America cosmetically safer; not only by
security measures which don't create additional Government
bloat and taxpayer costs, and which don't add to the already
steriodally excessive powers of a Government out of control,
but by realizing that we as a country have failed, and that this
failure cannot entirely be blamed on Government or the latest
conspiracy theory; but must be squarely and honestly addressed
in national repentance from wrongful behavior. If Americans
are going to ever again live meaningfully as bretheren, we
must demand of ourselves that we live up to that banner on
our coinage and currency which says "In God We Trust", and
we must guide our children toward creating a future in which
America once again becomes, as stated in the Pledge to the Flag,
"one nation, under God." Then and only then; these mourned
lost innocent precious souls taken from us, in one tragedy after
another from State to State, will have not died in vain.
Chairman, Committee of 37 Peace Initiative
PO Box 877
Edgmont, PA 19028-0877