Opines and Behinds

Opines and Behinds

A Gentle Reader had the opinion last week that my article was a bit skewed and insisted that the men in the Republic of Texas/the Republic of Texas has no right to secede and that I should make a red faced redaction for making the men in question sound like a quilting party, I now draw a map as to how I reached and maintain MY opinion;

Dear Gentle Reader,
“Opines are like behinds, everyone has one, and most smell bad to others.” Little truism I picked up in the military.
I would opine that any state would have the right of secession if their people so choose, constitution or not, and I will not redact that opinion in public or private. Please refer to the First Amendment for my right to say so.
But mentioning the constitution, I guess it becomes opinion whether the constitution be enforced or not…..depending on who you anger and whose opinion you ask. I mean calling the men from the secessionist movement traitors….is after all, a matter of opinion. Maybe those men simply seek freedom from real or perceived oppressions. To hear King George tell it the brigands and colonists also had no right to secede from England. But I beg to differ with your opinion that Texas and any of the other forty nine states would have no right to secede if they should perceive oppression from those to who they pay fealty for peace, if under no other law, than Natural Law.
You are correct sir, the constitution has no provisions allowing for the secession of any State in the union. Nor does it make any provisions against said secession. If you remember correctly, the Constitution was written as an assurance to the People that a central government would NOT become oppressive. To ensure this a Bill of Rights was added, but we will get to that later.
For forging the following words Thomas Jefferson was branded a traitor, and warranted for death, by men of power who would control and tax him with no reason except to control him. The Declaration of Independence starts out; “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” It was no small feat that the bodies which would govern Thomas were defeated (that’d be King George’s Red Coats) at the cost of the blood of Patriot and the soldiers of tyrants alike.
So the founders were called traitors when they sought to be free from the burdensome taxation and slights bestowed upon the Colonists by the King of England. Words of defamation work to build furor amongst those who will not think for themselves, today we call it demonization. Or are people who ignore the following two passages from the constitution traitors….again we must look to the beholder of the opinion. I would strongly suspect that the men who invaded the peaceful assembly of The Republic of Texas meeting probably took the following oath or one very similar to it; “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” Hmmmmm……things that make me go….hmmmm.
Okay so if those “official” men who took that oath, are they themselves traitors because they were in violation of the following rights of the peaceably assembled?
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Okay, maybe the good old boys from the “legitimate” state of Texas and the “legitimate” Feds, could have had a warrant but I suspect that was part of what caused the ruckus. They probably didn’t, but I am not ruling out the possibility that they did have one. One thing those good old government had on their side was might. I would imagine that they all showed up with guns and definitely under “color of law”, and as good old Mao opined “Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.”
So now, what is law? We have natural law, the law of the creator, by which we are all governed. Like it or not, one day you will drop dead, that is one of the laws of nature. Then we have man made law by which we establish punitive measures against what I call crimes of stupidity (speeding, DUI, spitting, etc, ad nauseum). But, there again we get into the arena of opinion on whether natural law carries any weight.
So now comes some more of that there smelly contentious opinion……natural law is the basis for the Bill of Rights and this here little passage from the Declaration of Independence; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Now if you go and look at the Declaration you will also notice that when you read the real declaration you will see in the preamble that phrase is written “the united States”. Yes a small “u” on united. That was for a reason. We were all nation States at that point.
So now here is the cold, hard truth; under natural law any group of men or group of states have the right to secede, if they bring enough guns to the fight, to “effect their safety and happiness”. That is why this little piece was put into the constitution Amendment II – 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.” I say sir, because, if you read the plethora of opinions on the subject you will get the gist. In fact the Virginia delegation’s opinion on what the Second Amendment should read was “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty….”
One opinion that I recall is George Bush’s on the constitution just being a “G-d piece of paper.” He is most correct. The basis for the constitution burns in the hearts and minds of freedom loving men and therein lies the meaning and spirit. Think about it.
And a last and final opinion from John Stewart Mill that you may have read in different form in many a military manual, or at least the bold parts were in “our” leadership manuals, “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”
I do not advocate violent change, but most times, natural law requires it as a last resort. Yessir, I took the oath and I hold it dear. I also disobey illegal orders. Like you sir, I have seen the injustice man can render upon himself in the name of power and control. De Opresso Liber was the motto under which I lived and fought. I maintain my “opinion” and my right to voice said opinion, in the name of liberty, in the name freedom and justice for all. Have a happy day.