Overcast ~ 40°F  
Login | Register
Saturday, February 11, 2012

Man,,,,,,,Be CAREFUL What You Wish For

Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008, at 4:01 PM

Elections sometimes bring out the best in some people, and the worst in others.

Last Saturday morning while waiting to get into the gunshow at the Boise Fairgrounds, a few of us up near the front of the longest line I'd ever been in, were talking "politics", as you'd expect after what happened last Tuesday.

Someone mentioned that we wouldn't have to be concerned with anti-gun Obama for long, because somebody would probably eliminate him.

Now, I've been hearing THAT for the last year or so, and I've gotta tell people to be careful what they wish for.

There are just three things wrong with this.......and I shared it with the individual who said it, as I'm sharing it with you folks out there now.

1. The FBI and CIA aren't asleep. They are well aware of what an Obama Presidency might mean for gunowners, and they know all too well what the sentiment is among the shooting fraternity right now.

So I reminded this guy that the ATF is KNOWN to infiltrate agents into gunshows, looking for these "loopholes" we're supposed to have. One of these agents could be the 2nd, 13th or 25th guy in line, wearing a "Remington Arms" baseball cap, and he just heard YOU say that!.........even if you only mean to "vent off" a little, NEVER talk about a President or President-Elect being "knocked off" around people you don't know. There was no guarentee that EVERYBODY at the show was automatically a right-winger!

2. Since the assassination of JFK, every presidential candidate (with the lone exception of McCain), has picked a running mate who is worse than HE is, as a sort of "insurance policy" If someone had "tapped" Clinton, we'd have been stuck with Gore. A LOT of people (including myself), can't stand Bush..............but would you rather have Cheney?

If someone WERE to take out Obama, we'd get saddled with BIDEN...........and Nancy Pelosi "on deck". As Phyliss Diller used to say, "You can turn these knobs all night and the picture won't get any better!"

And......#3......there's no law against "wishing" (not yet anyway), but if you MUST wish for some mishap, DON'T let a GUN be involved. We already have enough problems with media propaganda as it is. A drunk driver can kill a busload of schoolkids, and it might make Section C of your local paper. But let someone accidently discharge a 22 into his living room wall, and everybody from Tom Brokaw to Geraldo Rivera will get a piece of it.

I sincerely hope that NOBODY anywhere, is planning to achieve his "15 minutes of fame" and starting a civil war at the same time (although we DO need one right about now).

Leave him alone. Let him fail on his own in front of everybody. If he does good, and doesn't start dismantling our rights, that'll be WONDERFUL. I hope he does such a good job, that my buddy "Ex-Intern" gloats all over my blogs saying SEE-------I TOLD YOU SO!

I wouldn't mind it a BIT if I'm all wrong about this guy. I don't think I am though...........but no matter how bad it gets.....PLEASE....don't ANYBODY out there start wishing for the wrong things............remember that we don't have a dog in this fight for at least the next 2 years, and there is nothing to be gained by "going through the lineup!"


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

written like a man that has many years of wisdom and expirience, there is absolutly no disagreement here, bravo and thank you.

-- Posted by obamaman on Tue, Nov 11, 2008, at 4:31 PM

My pleasure, Ayrewolf. I think "prepared for" is a little more accurate at this point, than "planned"

I personally would like to see things straighten out in this country without another civil war, that would not only divide the nation for awhile, but would also leave us VERY OPEN to a invasion from some 3rd country we wouldn't be watching for, while we were busy with each other.

HOWEVER, I also know that's what it is probably going to take, so like a few million others, I too have been getting ready.

I like many others, feel like the America I grew up in has been stolen. I want it back, and if it means getting back into the "camo's" again", so be it, baby, and Semper Fi.

And to Obamaman......thank you.

-- Posted by bazookaman on Wed, Nov 12, 2008, at 10:05 AM

The Bill of Rights

by Howard Zinn, 1991

from the Zinn Reader

A few years back, a man high up in the CIA named Ray Cline was asked if the CIA, by its surveillance of protest organizations in the United States, was violating the free speech provision of the First Amendment. He smiled and said: "It's only an Amendment."

And when it was disclosed that the FBI was violating citizens' rights repeatedly, a high official of the FBI was asked if anybody in the FBI questioned the legality of what they were doing. He replied: "No, we never gave it a thought."

We clearly cannot expect the Bill of Rights to be defended by government officials. So it will have to be defended by the people.

If you do a bit of research into the origins of the Bill of Rights- and I had to do some because it is a job requirement of the historical profession-you will find that when the new government of the United States adopted the Bill of Rights in 1791, it did not do so with enthusiasm. The Bill of Rights was a political tool to quiet down critics of the Constitution. A Bill of Rights on paper comforts people. You don't have to take it seriously. Like that CIA man, you can smile, and say, they're only Amendments.

Well, in 1791, the first ten Amendments-the Bill of Rights- were added to the Constitution, and the First Amendment says, among other things: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Seven years later, in 1798, Congress passed a law abridging the freedom of speech and the press. It was the Sedition Act of 1798, and it provided jail sentences for people who criticized the government. A number of writers and speakers were imprisoned. They appealed to the court. Now we all learned in junior high school about checks and balances and how if Congress passes a law violating the Constitution, we are very lucky to have the Supreme Court to check that and declare the law null and void. (I was always proud to know such a fancy phrase, "null and void.")

Well, the members of the Supreme Court, apparently having skipped junior high school, or perhaps understanding that the phrase "checks and balances" is just intended to satisfy schoolchildren-did not declare the Sedition Act null and void. Not at all. They said it was constitutional. You may ask: by what legal philosophy can Supreme Court justices explain how Congress can pass a law abridging the freedom of speech when the Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech? I could tell you how they did that; but it would take a while and cause indigestion. Let us just say that legal training is a wonderful thing, it enables you to explain the unexplainable, defend the indefensible, and rationalize the irrational.

It seems that especially in time of war or near-war (and in 1798 it was such a time), the First Amendment is ignored. You may have noticed that the year 1991 did not start with a celebration of the Bill of Rights, but with a war. And that the government established control over information and the mass media became tongue-tied with patriotic fervor, and the First Amendment was bombed into oblivion. It is a truism of our political culture: if you are at war for freedom and democracy, you can't have freedom and democracy. So, exactly when free speech is most needed, that is, when it is a matter of life and death for the young people about to be sent to the battlefield-exactly at such a moment the government declares it can be suspended.

In 1917, as armies of young men in Europe were slaughtering one another in the first World War, and the United States decided to send its own young men into the butchery, Congress passed the Espionage Act, and the Sedition Act, providing heavy sentences for those criticizing the war. The Supreme Court again put our junior high school lesson to shame: checks and balances? Not in wartime. Not when you need them. The great liberal Oliver Wendell Holmes himself wrote the opinions affirming the constitutionality of the Espionage Act, sending a man named Schenck to jail for distributing a leaflet criticizing the war and the draft. Two thousand people were prosecuted for speaking or writing against the war, including Eugene Debs, the great labor leader and Socialist.

There were ludicrous episodes in all that. A filmmaker who made a movie about the American Revolution was sent to prison for ten years because the movie portrayed the British as the enemy in the American Revolution, and now the British were our allies in the war. The name of the movie was The Spirit of '76 and the title of the court case against the filmmaker was U.S. v. Spirit of '76. And that case sums up the relationship of the government to the Bill of Rights: U.S. v. Spirit of '76. It was the President of the United States, Harry Truman, who instituted loyalty oaths even before Joseph McCarthy waved his lists of Communists in the State Department. It was the Congress of the United States, Democrats as well as Republicans, that set up the House Un-American Activities Committee, and voted con tempt citations against people who refused to bow down to that Committee. It was the Supreme Court that affirmed the convictions of the Hollywood Ten for invoking the First Amendment. It was Republicans and Democrats, it was all three branches of government, all of them swearing to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and all of them violating that oath.

A word about the Supreme Court. We now have nine conservative justices, including one conservative woman and one conservative black man. It's called American pluralism. Many people have been depressed over this. Frankly, I tried to get depressed, but didn't succeed. Sure, it's better to have a liberal Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court at its most liberal has never been a dependable protector of people's rights. One year it will say you have a constitutional right to distribute leaflets in front of a supermarket. Another year it will say you can go to jail for that. One year it will say: high school students have a right to wear black arm bands to protest a war. Another year it will say: high school students don't have the right to put out their own newspapers without censorship by the school authorities. The Supreme Court, when it was liberal, affirmed that Japanese-Americans could be put in concentration camps because we were at war. The Supreme Court, liberal or conservative, sworn to defend the Constitution, has never been a bulwark against unconstitutional wars.

If it were left to the institutions of government, the Bill of Rights would be left for dead. But someone breathed life into the Bill of Rights. Ordinary people did it, by doing extraordinary things. The editors and speakers who, in spite of the Sedition Act of 1798, continued to criticize the government. The black and white abolitionists who defied the Fugitive Slave Law, defied the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, who insisted that black people were human beings, not property, and who broke into courtrooms and police stations to rescue them, to prevent their return to slavery.

Women, who were arrested again and again as they spoke out for their right to control their own bodies, or the right to vote. Members of the Industrial Workers of the World, anarchists, radicals, who filled the jails in California and Idaho and Montana until they were finally allowed to speak to working people. Socialists and pacifists and anarchists like Helen Keller and Rose Pastor Stokes, and Kate O'Hare and Emma Goldman, who defied the government and denounced war in 1917 and 1918. The artists and writers and labor organizers and Communists- Dalton Trumbo and Pete Seeger, and W.E.B. Du Bois and Paul Robeson, who challenged the congressional committees of the 1950s, challenged the FBI, at the risk of their freedom and their careers.

In the 1960s, the students of Kent State and Jackson State and hundreds of other campuses, the draft resisters and deserters, the priests and nuns and lay people, all the marchers and demonstrators and trespassers who demanded that the killing in Vietnam stop, the GIs in the Mekong Delta who refused to go out on patrol, the B52 pilots who refused to fly in the Christmas bombing of 1972, the Vietnam veterans who gathered in Washington and threw their Purple Hearts and other medals over a fence in protest against the war.

And after the war, in the '70s and '80s, those courageous few who carried on, the Berrigans and all like them who continued to demonstrate against the war machine, the Seabrook fence climbers, the signers of the Pledge of Resistance against U.S. military action in Central America, the gays and lesbians who marched in the streets for the first time, challenging the country to recognize their humanity, the disabled people who spoke up, after a long silence, demanding their rights. The Indians, supposed to be annihilated and gone from the scene, emerging ghostlike, to occupy a tiny portion of the land that was taken from them, Wounded Knee, South Dakota. Saying: we're not gone, we're here, and we want you to listen to us.

These are the people, men, women, children, of all colors and national origins, who gave life to the Bill of Rights.

-- Posted by Jacknife on Wed, Nov 19, 2008, at 8:09 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Shots from Bazookaman
Michael Bradbury
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
Job Description?
(12 ~ 9:24 PM, Oct 28)

The Traitors........part one
(14 ~ 4:59 AM, Jan 27)

Ninety-Nine and "Nighty-Night"
(8 ~ 3:48 PM, Jan 15)

An Even Hundred Before I Go
(4 ~ 3:35 PM, Jan 15)

The Traitors.......part III......brown or black?
(15 ~ 7:46 AM, Jan 13)