Presented with a cold and rainy Saturday, yesterday Mrs. KintlaLake and I spent a half-dozen hours visiting local garage sales and second-hand shops in search of treasures and odd bargains.
Her prize was a whimsical electric chandelier destined to hang over our patio. I was rewarded with a tattered-but-intact copy of the 1948 Boy Scout Handbook.
The cover price of this edition of Handbook for Boys was 65¢ (equivalent to $5.58 today). I fished it out of a pile of books at the Olde Shoe Factory Antique Mall in Lancaster and paid four bucks for it.
This particular copy is from the 1948 edition's sixth printing in 1953. A handwritten inscription on the first page records that a Scout leader presented it to the young owner in November of 1953 -- that's fifteen years before I earned the rank of Tenderfoot myself. Thumbing through the Handbook's 570 pages transports me back to my own days in Scouting. All the elements of Scoutcraft are there -- it's chock-full of primers on essential skills.
In the back of the Handbook, among pages devoted to "Books to Read" and the Index, are advertisements aimed at boys of Scouting age. To me, these are just as interesting (and perhaps more significant, culturally) as the rest of the book.
There are ads for woodcraft tools, naturally, from Marble's and Plumb, along with a page promoting Eveready flashlights and batteries. Other ads pitch shoes (Keds, Buster Brown), bicycles (Schwinn, Raleigh), photography (Kodak, Sylvania) and sports equipment (Spalding, Louisville Slugger, Bike jockstraps).
A few of the others: Lionel Trains, Evinrude and Johnson outboard motors, Aunt Jemima Pancake Mix, Coca-Cola, Baby Ruth and Tootsie Roll.
During these post-World War II years, mastering marksmanship (with actual firearms, I mean) still was considered Scoutcraft. That's why this printing included ads for Winchester, Marlin and Iver Johnson rifles. Remington went so far as to invest in a two-page spread, the only such ad in this Handbook.
Air guns do make one appearance in the Handbook's advertising section. According to the Crosman ad, a "bolt-action, single shot, gas-powered pellet rifle" -- complete with refillable CO2 cylinder -- could be had for $21.95.
That's $188.58 in today's dollars. At the time, an honest-to-goodness Winchester Model 69 cost just $28.65 (or $244.32 now).
From early childhood, words attributed to Patrick Henry were imprinted both in my head and on my heart:
"Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!"
Such expressions of commitment and courage are anathema to today's youth and, sadly, to the masses that choose entitlements over independence. These citizens dismiss the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, favoring instead the likes of Bill Maher:
"Well, sometimes you do need a nanny state -- that old thing about, 'the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.' I mean, at what point does the environment get so bad that we -- that the government says, 'Yes, we're going to have to infringe on your freedom a little'?
"These people don't want any infringing on freedom. That, to me, is a suicide pact."
Patrick Henry, I think, would have been proud to count himself among "these people" so maligned by the patronizing Maher.
I know I am. Like Henry, I choose Liberty.
I'll wrap with a video released by Free Market America on Earth Day 2012, which was observed last Sunday. The video makes a powerful statement about how our government has squashed economic Liberty and, in the process, sabotaged our future.
"It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally and who's not."
(Chief Justice John G. Roberts of the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking to U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli during today's oral arguments over Arizona's controversial immigration law. The federal government, represented by Verrilli, wants to prevent Arizona from requiring that state law-enforcement officials determine the immigration status of anyone they stop if an officer has reason to suspect that a person may be in the U.S. illegally.)
"These people are not conservatives. They're not Republicans. They're radical libertarians and I'm doggone offended by it."
"I despise these people, and I'm not the guy you come in and dump on without getting punched in the mouth."
(Six-term U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch in an NPR interview earlier this month, characterizing his Republican challengers and reacting to the prospect of breaking a political sweat for the first time in 30 years. At last weekend's Utah GOP convention, Sen. Hatch failed to garner enough votes to win his party's nomination outright, forcing a primary faceoff against former state Sen. Dan Liljenquist -- who, by the way, was born just before the incumbent's first term began -- in June.)
"Levon Helm passed peacefully this afternoon. He was surrounded by family, friends and band mates and will be remembered by all he touched as a brilliant musician and a beautiful soul."
Levon Helm was an American treasure, his talent and energy gifts to us all. I haven't the words to express my respect for the man, my love of his music or my sadness at his passing. Safe travels, brother.
It's part of our duty as citizens, in my opinion, to educate ourselves about the Constitution of the United States -- in fact, we should know it through-and-through. Just today I discovered an excellent tool for the task: The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Guide presents the complete text of the Constitution, of course, hot-linked to explanatory notes and illuminating essays. I especially like the Teacher's Companion to the Guide, each section of which can be saved as a pdf.
It's fair to point out that the The Heritage Foundation, which publishes the Guide, is a think tank devoted to formulating and promoting "conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."
"If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year. If you can't go home and get everybody in your lives to clean house in this vile, evil, America-hated administration, I don't even know what you're made out of."
"We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November...any questions?"
Well, alrighty then. No questions here, Ted.
Honestly, though, that sort of rhetoric is more fertilizer than seed -- that is, it's far more likely to encourage those who already share Nugent's rage than it is to win new believers. It'll draw the attention of the Secret Service -- First Amendment rights notwithstanding, we could've predicted that -- but in terms of unseating the incumbent, it just won't get the job done.
I'm feeling the need to towel-off after Terrible Ted's trademark tirade, so I'll close this post with a few images that represent the "seedier" side of our right to keep and bear arms. The first two are covers from Remington publications aimed at young people's interest in shooting. The third is "Teaching the Young Idea How to Shoot," pulled from the pages of a 1922 issue of Outing.
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." (Thomas Jefferson, 1787)
"Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage and you are preparing your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you have lost the genius of your own independence, and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises." (Abraham Lincoln, 1858)
"The most important thing in this world is liberty. More important than food or clothes -- more important than gold or houses or lands -- more important than art or science -- more important than all religions, is the liberty of man." (Robert Green Ingersoll, 1887)
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." (Thomas Jefferson, 1791)
"The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong." (attributed to Thomas Paine, 1775)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." (Noah Webster, 1787)
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." (Adolf Hitler, 1942)
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." (Hubert Humphrey, 1960)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Benjamin Franklin, 1759)
That iconic poster, produced in 1885, no doubt lured hordes of opportunists to California. A present-day incident, described in the following article, should repel thinking Americans in equal numbers:
(CNSNews.com) -- The government spent at least $205,075 in 2010 to "translocate" a single bush in San Francisco that stood in the path of a $1.045-billion highway-renovation project that was partially funded by the economic stimulus legislation President Barack Obama signed in 2009.
The bush -- a Franciscan manzanita -- was a specimen of a commercially cultivated species of shrub that can be purchased from nurseries for as little as $15.98 per plant. The particular plant in question, however, was discovered in the midst of the City of San Francisco, in the median strip of a highway, and was deemed to be the last example of the species in the "wild."
Prior to the discovery of this "wild" Franciscan manzanita, the plant had been considered extinct for as long as 62 years -- extinct, that is, outside of people's yards and botanical gardens.
Caltrans agreed to transfer $79,470 to the Presidio Trust "to fund the establishment, nurturing, and monitoring of the Mother Plant in its new location for a period not to exceed ten (10) years following relocation and two (2) years for salvaged rooted layers and cuttings according to the activities outlined in the Conservation Plan."
Furthermore, Presidio Parkway Project spokesperson Molly Graham told CNSNews.com that the "hard removal" -- n.b. actually digging up the plant, putting it on a truck, driving it somewhere else and replanting it -- cost $100,000.
Caltrans also agreed to "Transfer $25,605.00 to the Trust to fund the costs of reporting requirements of the initial 10-year period as outlined in the Conservation Plan."
In the midst of our national economic crisis, this is pure madness.
The People's Republic of California is where fiscal responsibility goes to die, interred right next to Liberty. The state faces its own budget shortfall of $10 billion, so it has no problem squandering federal money -- my money, your money, our kids' money.
Although the Left Coast deserves every ounce of outrage we can muster, by no means should it be the sole target of our ire.
Consider that New York, New Jersey, Maryland and the southern New England states, among others, engage in the same assault on their citizens. See how corruption grows, entitlements blossom and individual liberties vanish in large cities, and how quickly these cancers spread to the suburbs and beyond.
Independent citizen-patriots are being pressed into "flyover country." It looks like we're going to have to make our stand -- practically and politically -- right here in the Heartland.
Recently, and more than usual, my thoughts have been returning to a long-ago summer in Montana. My daily Google searches have followed my reminiscing, and this morning I discovered that Ev Lundgren had died on February 26th of this year. He was 95.
The Lundgrens bought West Glacier Mercantile in 1946. This collection of businesses at the west entrance to Glacier National Park serves visitors in search of food and drink, fuel and provisions, lodging and coin-op laundry. The quaint complex remains in the family today.
I worked in the Lundgrens' gas station, then a Chevron, for several months in the late 1970s. The first thing I found out that summer was that no one -- not the local workers and certainly not the seasonal crews -- questioned Ev's standing as The Boss.
What's more, if an employee of West Glacier Mercantile didn't get dressed-down by Ev once a day, we knew he'd written us off. He was demanding as hell but undeniably fair.
I absolutely loved working for the guy.
As a businessman, Ev personified "sweat equity" -- he refused to let anyone outwork him. (Do the math -- he was already in his early 60s when I met him.) Away from the Merc he was an accomplished outdoorsman, especially passionate when it came to Glacier Park.
I recall Ev stopping by the Chevron one particular evening around closing time. I had the next day off and planned to do some exploring in the park, so I asked him to suggest a destination, perhaps someplace uncrowded.
He didn't so much as hesitate before answering. "Get in that fancy truck of yours and drive up the North Fork Road, past Polebridge, far as it goes. Hardly anyone takes the time to make that trip, but there's nowhere better -- nowhere."
Because I followed his advice, the next afternoon I laid eyes on Kintla Lake for the very first time. I haven't been the same since.
I'll close this post with a line from Ev's obituary:
"A celebration of life for Everett Lundgren will be held in early summer 2012 when the bluebirds return."
That sentiment, like my memories of the man, makes me smile.
(The photos of Kintla Lake accompanied the article "Glacier the Unspoiled," published in the June, 1922 issue of Outing magazine. The map of western Glacier National Park appeared in Volume 9 of the Official Automobile Blue Book, 1919 edition.)
"...I also want to clarify something else, that really you should be ashamed of, that you said earlier. You don't believe that a person should be able to stand your ground. And you referenced your homelands of England, where if someone invades your home, an English homeowner, by law, has to retreat.
"...I offer to you that that's anti-human, that that disrespects the gift of life, and it actually encourages recidivist criminal behavior by sending out a message that we're not going to stand our ground; we're going to retreat.
"...You're in America now. And in America, we have a Second Amendment right. And we value life more than sheep do. And we don't back down. So the stand-your-ground law is common sense. It's logical. And it's the right thing to do."
(Ted Nugent to CNN's Piers Morgan on Wednesday, April 4th, 2012)
The Declaration of Arbroath was penned 692 years ago today. This declaration, in the form of a letter to Pope John XXII, affirmed Scotland as independent and sovereign, asserting its right to respond by force-of-arms to unjust attack. Alba gu bràth!
When I posted "My take on Sanford" last month, I spoke too soon. In fact, my speculation about what transpired on the night of February 26th may well have been dead wrong.
I should've known better.
New information about the incident comes to light every day -- some of it's factual, some of it's legal posturing and some of it's reflexive rhetoric from the usual suspects.
The matter is in the hands of investigators. Soon it'll be presented to a grand jury and, potentially, to a trial jury. That's where it will be (and should be) decided.
I did get one thing right -- I don't believe I've ever seen such an intense siege on our constitutional right to keep and bear arms and on our human right to self-defense. Coverage of the shooting has given little time or credence to that side of the story.
All-star status (and not in a good way) goes to CNN's Piers Morgan. Not only has he followed the easy recipe, he's repeatedly spiked the punch with his British slant:
"My view from the start has been, it seems incomprehensible to me under any form of stand-your-ground law -- or any absurd law as I view it -- that somebody could shoot somebody who turned out to be unarmed and not even being arrested on the night. In Britain where I come from, that would cause a sensation the likes of which our justice system has never seen before."
"As far as British law is concerned, if this had happened in Britain, there would be no stand-your-ground defense and he would have been arrested. I'm more comfortable with the way we do things."
Last night, at least, he solicited the perspective of one Ted Nugent. Here's the complete transcript of their exchange:
MORGAN: The rally to bring justice to Trayvon Martin. The tragedy brings out a lot of emotions and everyone has an opinion on the shooting, including my next guest, Ted Nugent. Everyone knows he never holds back. And I thank him for joining me tonight. Ted, welcome back.
Last time, we were having a fairly jocular debate about all this. But this is a bit too serious for that. You've heard the attorneys on both sides there. What do you make of this case in its entirety?
NUGENT: Well, first of all, thanks for going after this very tragic situation, Piers. And thank you for having me on. But let me clarify one thing, very, very important, that you alluded to earlier in your program, that you believe that the vast majority of Americans want Zimmerman arrested.
Let me tell you what the vast majority of Americans want. We're saying prayers for the Martin family and all those other black youths that are slaughtered every week. Those are the people that we constantly cry out for.
So be very careful what you assume. Those of us that love life and respect life, we don't see any color. But we wonder where the outcry is when every week these youths are slaughtered across the streets of America. So that's the most important statement I want to make right here.
MORGAN: But, I mean, look, there are always, with all these cases, innumerable other cases that can be thrown in as why don't you care as much about that? The reality of this case is that, I believe, it's popped in America as a big cause because of the precise nature of what happened after Trayvon Martin was killed.
That is this particularly extreme version of stand-your-ground. You have to use that phrase, because it is in Florida. It's particularly wide-ranging. And it has allowed a situation where somebody can shoot an unarmed teenager and actually be allowed to go home that night without even being arrested.
That's why I understand people feeling exercised about why he wasn't arrested on the night. Shouldn't he have been? Even for someone like you, that believes in right to bear arms and guns and everything else, shouldn't he have been arrested?
NUGENT: You saw the tape. I saw the tape where he was handcuffed, Piers. That's arrested. He was arrested. He was questioned. The stand-your-ground law does have specific ramifications.
But I also want to clarify something else, that really you should be ashamed of, that you said earlier. You don't believe that a person should be able to stand your ground. And you referenced your homelands of England, where if someone invades your home, an English homeowner, by law, has to retreat.
Piers, I offer to you that that's anti-human, that that disrespects the gift of life, and it actually encourages recidivist criminal behavior by sending out a message that we're not going to stand our ground; we're going to retreat.
Piers, you're in America now. And in America, we have a Second Amendment right. And we value life more than sheep do. And we don't back down. So the stand-your-ground law is common sense. It's logical. And it's the right thing to do.
MORGAN: Right. I mean, American has 270 million guns, by common estimation. Britain, I think, has about two million.
NUGENT: I think more than that.
MORGAN: Well, maybe more than that. OK. The last record said 9,484 homicides involving guns in the last year that was recorded. Britain had 68. I suppose my point is this, is that I don't defend all the laws in Britain. Many of them are ridiculous. I don't defend all the laws in America or attack all the laws. Some, to me, seem ridiculous. Others seem perfectly fair and balanced.
It's a great country with a great legal system in many ways. I don't denigrate America with this. But on the stand-your-ground law, in particular, it seems to me unbelievable that a young, unarmed teenager in America today can actually be shot dead for possession of a bag of Skittles, on his way home to his father's girlfriend's house.
My point was, when they were mocking British law, by the way -- they started this. I said back in Britain, that wouldn't have happened. You couldn't do that without being arrested and almost certainly charged. Now I think many Americans -- let's not say the majority. I don't know the statistics. But many Americans feel uncomfortable that this could happen in modern America and that George Zimmerman would simply be allowed to go home that night when Trayvon Martin goes to a coffin.
NUGENT: Piers, you have expressed that you don't want to try this on television. I also do not want to try this on television. I think we both agree that there's a tragedy that it is being tried and that Zimmerman has been convicted across the media in many instances.
So let's not do that here. So let me propose to you a scenario that I think you can grasp and support. You must be aware, and if not I'll inform you now, how many professional law enforcement heroes are killed every year with their own weapon. I'm not juxtaposing this with the Trayvon and the Zimmerman situation.
But it does happen, where an assailant will start beating a person so badly that those of us that are armed, we have a responsibility to keep that new assault from taking our weapon, because if the assault escalates to that degree -- certainly the fist can go into a deadly situation if they get a hold of the gun bearer's gun.
So we have to be cognizant of that. If it wasn't for backup guns in law enforcement and in civilians hands, oftentimes, that the perpetrator and the person getting beat up is killed with his own gun. So let's not dismiss that reality that is documented over and over again across this country.
MORGAN: But do you believe that a neighborhood watch official acting in that capacity should be armed and using that firearm?
NUGENT: Yes.
MORGAN: OK. Well, Ted, we'll agree to disagree over that. I hope we can do that again in an extended way soon, because your opinions are always very interesting to hear. Thank you for joining me.
NUGENT: Thank you, Piers. My family sends their best and our prayers are with the Martin family.
There's some great stuff in there -- thanks, Ted.
About Morgan's final question -- judging by the pause that followed Nugent's unequivocal answer (plus the look on Morgan's face), it was clear that the host wasn't quite prepared for such an affirmation of Liberty. Go figure, eh?
Every time I hear someone accuse the courts of "judicial activism" -- whether this fashionable epithet comes from the Left or the Right -- I can't help remembering what George Carlin said:
"Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"
Here's one that Carlin surely would've appreciated: When I get a tax break, it's a deduction. When someone undeserving (according to me) gets a tax break, it's a damned loophole.
Likewise, the perception of judicial activism depends on where one stands. For hardcore partisans in search of ideological absolutes, the matter remains inescapably relative, even if they won't admit it.
Take, for example, Pres. Obama's shot across the Supreme Court's bow on Monday -- "that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law." He characterized the "Affordable Care Act" as "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
That first remark is a breathtaking example of executive arrogance. The second simply doesn't square with the facts.
Clearing away perceptions, exaggerations and outright lies, the only honest place to stand is on principle -- not on party principles, not on ideological principles, but on constitutional principles.
This independent citizen-patriot acknowledges his own subjective nature and yet refuses to bend to influence carried by the latest gust of wind. I stand on the Constitution of the United States.
"I'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, I'm sure you’ve heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed, he was referring of course to Obamacare, to what he termed a broad consensus and majorities in both houses of Congress."
"[The president's statement] has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. So I want to be sure that you're telling us the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases."
"The letter [which the Justice Department must submit to the court by noon on Thursday, April 5th] needs to be at least three pages, single spaced, no less and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president's statements."
(U.S. Circuit Court Judge Jerry Smith, addressing U.S. Justice Department lawyer Dana Lydia Kaersvang during oral arguments yesterday in Houston. The appeals court is reviewing a provision of the "Affordable Care Act" that blocks federal medical payments to certain hospitals. Judge Smith was appointed by Pres. Ronald Reagan.)
"I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."
(U.S. President -- and former professor of constitutional law -- Barack Obama, at a press conference on Monday, lobbing threats at the U.S. Supreme Court, which is preparing to rule on the "Affordable Care Act," a.k.a. "Obamacare")
"It's important that people be put in a position where their Second Amendment rights are protected, but that they also don't, as a consequence of the laws, unintendedly [sic] put themselves in harm's way."
"The idea that there's this overwhelming additional security in the ownership and carrying concealed and deadly weapons... I think it's the premise, not the constitutional right, but the premise that it makes people safer is one that I'm not so sure of."
(VP Joe Biden on yesterday's edition of CBS News "Face the Nation")
Against the backdrop of the shooting involving a neighborhood-watch volunteer last month in Sanford, Florida, this subject seems timely. First, a little background: my wife and I are active in our local crime watch. It's a private effort, separate and distinct from the official community-watch program managed by our county sheriff's department.
Applicants for the sheriff's volunteer program are trained in basic protocol and procedures. If accepted, they're issued identifying clothing (cap, polo shirt and jacket) and patrol in radio-equipped marked cars.
Our group, by contrast, holds regular information-sharing meetings and leaves the rest to residents' interest and discretion. Mrs. KintlaLake and I often cruise the streets near our house and monitor nearby city parks, and we keep tabs on our neighbors.
We're crystal-clear about what we're legally empowered to do: observe and report. We don't pursue and we don't engage.
We have no authority to enforce the law -- we're not cops, nor do we aspire to be. We're simply citizens of this community, taking responsibility for a measure of its security.
Long-time KintlaLake Blog readers will recall that both my wife and I hold CCW permits, and yes, we carry when we're moving through our community to take note of goings-on. Then again, we always exercise our concealed-carry privileges, whenever and wherever possible.
(The sheriff's community-watch volunteers aren't permitted to carry firearms while on-duty, by the way.)
Getting involved in a crime-watch group (or forming one) is a good idea, in my opinion. A few suggestions:
Know the law -- local, state & federal.
Don't fly solo -- maintain your independence, but enlist the participation of other members of the community.
I'll get right to the point -- the New York City Department of Education has published a list of more than 50 words and topics to be avoided on standardized tests. Why?
Because they "could evoke unpleasant emotions in the students."
(Oh, c'mon now -- seriously?)
"The intent," say school officials, "is to avoid giving offense or disadvantage any test takers by privileging prior knowledge."
(Whatever the hell that means. I guess even the Word Police can't explain the inexplicable in plain English.)
"We're not an outlier in being politically correct. This is just making sure that test makers are sensitive in the development of their tests."
An open mic caught Pres. Barack Obama and current Russian Pres. Dmitri Medvedev wrapping up their discussion today about Russia's demand that the U.S. abandon its plans for a missile-defense shield. "This is my last election," Pres. Obama said. "After my election I have more flexibility." "I understand," Pres Medvedev said. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir" (referring to incoming Russian Pres. Putin). It's a window into classic lame-duck politics, what virtually every elected official does without the burden of another campaign. But here, on this subject and with these stakes, it's scary as hell. Watch the video of today's unguarded moment (below) and ask yourself: How many times has this president has offered similar assurances, abroad and at home, and to whom?
Y'know, it'd be just fine with me if this image went viral: Feel free to grab it and pass it along -- Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, whatever. If you want, hell, turn it into a bumper sticker.
And now, with apologies (or not) to songwriters Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne, these lyrics seem appropriate:
Well, I won't back down
No, I won't back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won't back down
Gonna stand my ground
Won't be turned around
And I'll keep this world from draggin' me down
Gonna stand my ground
And I won't back down
Hey, baby, there ain't no easy way out
Hey, I will stand my ground
And I won't back down
Well, I know what's right
I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin' me around
But I'll stand my ground
And I won't back down
I won't minimize the tragedy of Trayvon Martin's death, nor should you infer that I'm leaping to defend shooter George Zimmerman. But facing elected officials' cowardice and largely one-sided coverage of Sanford, it's time for those of us who responsibly exercise our right to self-defense to make our voices heard.
With another threat to our Second Amendment rights now radiating from Florida, it's worth mentioning that the Brady Campaign to Disarm Law-Abiding Citizens (a.k.a. the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) came out with its latest state scorecards last month. Brady uses a laughably arbitrary scoring scheme and a 100-point scale to rank states based on firearms-related laws, awarding zero to four stars. The not-so-surprising result?
"California continues to blaze legislative trails in saving lives, rising to a high of 81 points on the 2011 Brady State Scorecard rankings of state gun laws. California's universal background check system, retention of purchase records, limiting handgun purchases to one a month, and an assault clip ban are just some of the laws that provide a road map to preventing gun violence."
The Golden State's relentless assault on the U.S. Constitution earned it four stars and a bright-green designation on Brady's map (above). Most of the three-star states are clustered in the Northeast -- New Jersey (72 points), Massachusetts (65), New York (62) and Connecticut (58) -- and get a light-green stain. Florida (3), by the way, is among 31 states honored in red on Brady's map for scoring fewer than ten points and earning zero stars. And three states have my personal admiration for scoring zero points: Alaska, Arizona and Utah. Well done, People. I'm pleased to say that The Great State of Ohio has made progress, by Brady's measure, since the last time the subject came up on KintlaLake Blog. With a score of seven points (down from 11), we're now a zero-star state. No, we're not perfect yet, but it's good to be in the red.
On February 26th in Sanford, Florida, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman. The admitted shooter hasn't been charged, ostensibly because officials haven't determined if his actions fall under Florida's "stand-your-ground" law.
I have access only to news reports and not evidence, so judging guilt or innocence wouldn't be fair. That said, I'm going to be unfair. Based on what I've read and heard, it looks to me like Zimmerman exercised criminally bad judgment and acted out of simmering hatred -- in short, he finally caught up with a black kid in a hoodie and sentenced him to death, presuming that he could avoid being charged by arguing self-defense.
Believing that and proving it are two different things, of course. At this point there's no reason to cast aspersions on rightly deliberate investigators for not yet arresting Zimmerman.
Despite that, we've seen angry protests in Sanford and beyond. Much of the news media has whipped the story into a sensational froth.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott has appointed a special prosecutor to look into the case. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has sent federal investigators to Sanford to "help" state and local officials. And, ominously, Gov. Scott has formed a task force to review the state's stand-your-ground law.
Pres. Barack Obama, responding to a reporter yesterday, said,
"I think all of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident."
Let's be clear here: Zimmerman pursued Martin and, apparently, either confronted the unarmed teenager or provoked a confrontation, so the stand-your-ground law doesn't come into play. Still, one senseless death resulting from one stupid, irresponsible act will be exploited by those who seek to prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves and their families.
Zimmerman didn't do us any favors, certainly, and now Liberty-loving Americans must prepare for a fresh assault on our constitutional and human rights. Castle Doctrine in particular will come under siege nationwide -- we can count on that.
About Castle Doctrine Preparing to employ armed defense to protect oneself and one's family is a personal choice and, thanks to our elected officials, not at all a simple one.
The crux here is called Castle Doctrine, and whether or not it applies varies from state to state. It designates a person's place of residence (and in some states a person's vehicle or workplace) as a "castle" in which that person may expect to enjoy protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It gives a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that "castle," and other innocent persons legally within, from violent attack or intrusion which threatens violent attack.
Fundamentally, Castle Doctrine enables a person's right to self-defense, trumping the "duty to retreat" principle and the mandate that a person use only proportionate force against an attacker. And legally speaking, it permits the criminal defense of "justifiable homicide" when the use of deadly force actually causes death.
Castle Doctrine is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and again, it's not universal. It's also important to note that the law almost never permits armed defense of property -- only life. Each of us is obliged to know our state and local laws and make our own choices. And if we choose to make armed defense part of protecting self and family, professional training is a must.
Earlier today I asserted that those of us who treasure our Liberty are "in the minority." Now permit me, please, to introduce a proud representative of the majority.
When Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney held an event yesterday at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, a young woman (reportedly a Bradley student) took the microphone:
"So you're all for like, yay, freedom, and all this stuff. And yay, like pursuit of happiness. You know what would make me happy? Free birth control."
Fresh from Occupy, here we have a card-carrying member of the entitled masses, a citizen exercising her First Amendment rights by deriding the Declaration of Independence. Nice.
How did Romney respond?
"Let me tell you something -- if you're looking for free stuff you don't have to pay for? Vote for the other guy, that's what he's all about, okay? That's not what I'm about."
In principle it's a fine comeback, all things considered. It may well go a long way toward helping Romney win primary voters.
I predict, however, that neither this nor any other GOP candidate will have the stones to strike such a libertarian pose should he land his party's nomination. See, we're getting the campaign we deserve, too.
Here's a news flash: opposing the president's re-election won't save our nation. Considering the current crop of GOP hopefuls, hell, replacing Pres. Obama won't even move us in the right direction. Campaign season litters the landscape with canards. Candidates exhort us to reclaim "family values," restore capitalism or fight for religious freedom. Most of that rhetoric is nothing but pandering; all of it distracts us from what threatens the future of our country.
What we're losing, fundamentally and insidiously, is individual Liberty. A handful of examples:
Obama's Executive Order Authorizes Peacetime Martial Law (The New American)
Holder 1995: We Must 'Brainwash' People on Guns (Breitbart)
Throw a Football or Frisbee on an L.A. Beach, Pay a Thousand-Dollar Fine (Reason)
The Nanny State Owns Your Kids: 'Educators,' Not Parents, 'Know Best,' Insists Michigan Bureaucrat (Republic Magazine)
This is the government we deserve. As citizens we've abdicated our duty to preserve, protect and defend the freedoms we crow about only on national holidays.
Nothing personal -- I mean, if you're reading this there's a good chance that you're not part of the problem. You love this country. You chart your own course, independent of prevailing winds, and you earn your keep. You cherish Liberty -- every moment, above all.
And you join me in the minority.
In this moment of frustration I'm recalling an old Remington ad I posted here last year:
"No poison-pollen of Old World imperialism gone to seed can contaminate -- nor any attempt of crowd-sickened collectivism undermine -- the priceless individualism of the American who truly keeps his feet on the earth."
The antitheses -- "crowd-sickened collectivism" versus "priceless individualism" -- stand out, don't they?
This stark contrast captures our challenge. It reminds us what's at stake: Liberty.
Her prize was a whimsical electric chandelier destined to hang over our patio. I was rewarded with a tattered-but-intact copy of the 1948 Boy Scout Handbook.
In the back of the Handbook, among pages devoted to "Books to Read" and the Index, are advertisements aimed at boys of Scouting age. To me, these are just as interesting (and perhaps more significant, culturally) as the rest of the book.
A few of the others: Lionel Trains, Evinrude and Johnson outboard motors, Aunt Jemima Pancake Mix, Coca-Cola, Baby Ruth and Tootsie Roll.
