My Response to this video
Adam Kokesh vs. Kevin Powell on Russia Today
and this article Arizon is America by Kevin Powell
Furthermore, If you don't feel like reading this letter I wrote to Kevin just watch Adam Kokesh read it on his show.
Hi Kevin,
Saw your interview on Russia Today. I really enjoy how you stated at 3 mins and 20 seconds-ish that "As George Earl once said famously that 'Everything is political' and he was absolutely right". Then for the rest of video you tried to say that you were not political, that your opponent on the show was the only political one and he said politics first. Sooo. You're saying that everything is political except you the humble public servant? Also your opponent, Adam, said in his opening statement that everyone out there is saying that this shooting is "Non-partisan" but, oh by the way, I'm right and you're wrong. I don't know if you noticed but he basically wrote your script there for the rest of the segment. The fact that you hardly let the man speak doesn't mean you are any more right it just makes you look like a loud mouth. I also don't see how you can think of yourself as non-political when you're proposals challenge the Bill of Rights.
I'm no gunslinger and I don't own a gun but I do know that the 2nd amendment was not intended to ensure that people have the right to hunt pheasant. It's written "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Being NECESSARY to the security of a free state! Now the militias were disbanded due to the strength of the US military, which is a woeful thing, so all that is left to defend the 'free state' is the right to bear arms. There are many problems with having a free state but as Jefferson said “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
Furthermore, I once saw a bumper stick that said: 'Mao, Stalin and Hitler all agree, Gun Control works!' Now that's an inflammatory thing to say but it is the truth. All of those societies had controls on fire arms. Not that it made much difference. I mean after all even if the Germans had guns it would not have changed the fact that Hitler was elected democratically and everything he did was completely legal. Even the 'final solution' was 'legal' as the Reichstagg had, through the enabling act, made anything Hitler wanted to do absolutely legal. That citizens of that nation did not have a set of overarching laws considered inalienable to protect them. In that nation the people's rights were delineated by the state. So when the state came to take you away there was no higher law to appeal to. That's what happens when governments grant the rights to their people... they can take them away! There was no overarching philosophy, just the law which, at the end of a gun, said that you no longer had any rights to defend. That's the point where having a gun might be nice, to at least have a chance to defend your natural rights from the artificial rights of the state.
Natural laws are often the most difficult to understand. The men that made our nation were to the first to grasp at them and codify, through experience, those which they thought most fundamental. Those men could have become the monarchs and rulers of a new aristocracy in a new nation but instead chose to acknowledge that there are natural laws and that a state has no authority to govern over them but merely to defend them. These men chose to forgo the power they could have had in their lives to make something much greater. These were the real servants of society who really sacrificed. They knew that these natural laws above all else are the most important to uphold. So to say that you are a public servant in one sentence and then say that you are in favor of gutting the bill of rights in the next is an outrage. We are continuing down a path which has been followed with only one exception in history. That path is that all rights are privileges given by the state. The exception used to be The United States of America. You are but one more brick in the wall who wishes rights to be mere privileges handed down from state authority. I am just one drop of water saying that these rights are innate in our humanity. We'll never be terribly great friends. Right now and for the last 80-100 years the wall has grown high and strong with your help and the help of many many others. Like all walls though, one drop at a time it will be worn down by the laws of nature. It will take years, decades or even more but natural law will peacefully erode the wall with reason and truth to rule once again. It's started to rain again here as people begin to realize the difference. Beginning to learn about legalized plunder and that both parties, Republican and Democrat, believe that the rights of the people are to be delineated by the state. If I'm wrong about you please correct me, but if you are looking to turn a natural right into a privilege given by the government your stance is pretty plain to me.
I wrote this in response to the video but also would like to reference the above article you wrote as well. This above statement should answer your question of "who do they want their country back from?" Most American's have not been able to put their finger on this question quite yet mostly because for their entire lives they've been told to blame the Republicans or blame the Democrats. The answer they seek is that the people want their country back from those who believe that it the duty of the state to deliver the rights to the people not protect the rights they already have from birth. It has little to do with returning to a slave economy or the Jim Crow south. Slavery is a scourge on American/World History and may have already well ruined us. On a conciliatory note based on your above letter you are correct about Americans needing to look long and hard at their country. I'd even agree with the things you recommended they look at. I'd just expand it a little. Look at the welfare system (which make people dependent on the state and expect to be taken care of by the state), social security, The Federal Reserve, The IRS and all fancy schemes to rob Americans blind. Unemployment (which discourages people to take employment which pays less than $300 a week), Minimum wage laws (which discriminates against unskilled workers and causes us to lose jobs to cheaper labor overseas). Over-medication of the public, especially in public schools. Public Education is not adequate and, in my opinion and experience, can even be harmful to creating free thinking and productive individuals. The Patriot Act (Total assault on the Bill of Rights) and the War On Terrorism (how can you fight a war against a military tactic? How about a War On Flanking?). Is medical treatment a right? If so who grants it? God? Is every child born with an indentured, personal physician beside him? Well of course that is not the case. Which means that means that the 'right' to health care is also a right granted by the state and thus one which can be arbitrarily removed by any number of bureaucratic means. Most balk at the notion of eliminating these institutions but they are strands in the fabric of our society just as we are. If WE are the problem, as you said in your post, and if those programs are part of US then they perhaps should be looked at with another perspective as well.
Sincerely,
Rich Clarke
No comments:
Post a Comment