The Employee Handbook

Unless you are one of the lifetime welfare recipients in the country, chances are you either have a job or have had a job at some point in your life. Most employers have a set of guidelines that dictate how employees have to behave and how they have to perform while at work. This can include anything from how to dress, to what language they can use, production quotas, grooming standards, behavior models and any number of other things that are designed to maximize the benefit of the company and in lots of cases, the safety of the employees. 

Often, these guidelines are in the form of an employee handbook. I have seen these come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them as small as a few pages stapled together, some of them professionally bound books of hundreds of pages. Typically, employees will have to sign a letter acknowledging that they have read, understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth within. Failure to do so can be met with discipline or even termination. Company also have agreements where employees can be prosecuted or even sued for breaking certain rules. 

Everyone from McDonalds to Fortune 500 companies feature some form of employee handbooks. When a company hires an employee, it is no small thing for them. It often involves quite an investment of time and money. They expect the employee to step in and do the job they were hired to do and often put a lot of money into the process of making sure they are equipped to do so. When an employees fails to live up to his end of the bargain it can cost him his job and it can cost the company a great deal, from money, to time lost, to production lost or could make customer service suffer leading to loss of business. It is no small thing. Companies have the potential to be so adversely affected by this that it can lead to business failure in extreme cases. There is a reason that companies put so much effort into the crafting of these handbooks.

To a business owner, the vitality, growth and survival of the company is of immense importance. A company's survival and ability to thrive can also affect the lives of hundreds or thousands of other people. There was an essay written years ago called I, Pencil, by Leonard Read which describes among other economic ideas, the fact that the creation of an object as simple as a pencil involves the work, brainpower and capital of thousands of people. The catastrophic breakdown of any of the parts of such a system could negatively impact the entire process and send ten of thousands of people in search of another job. That may seem extreme, but the reality is, most businesses are just one such failure away from extinction. 

What if there were such a business that could negatively affect the entire population in such a way? If the failure of this business could send the country into financial and social upheaval, shouldn't we all be concerned about its functionality? Of course we should. If its failure could send you to the poorhouse and put you in the city block long lines to obtain potatoes or toilet paper, you should be concerned. Concern is but a fraction of what you should be, you should take a vital interest. The same way that a small business owner takes a vital interest in the daily functions of his company. There is such a business, if you haven't guessed it by now, the federal government. It shouldn't be such a business, but here we are, it is what it is. 

It be nice, if we, the people, as "owners" of this business could at the least expect the employees to operate by a code of conduct, an employee handbook. We should be able to hold our employees accountable for their performance, conduct and anything else that influences the way they perform the job we have hired them to do. This should apply to everyone from entry level employees of the myriad of agencies all the way up to the President of the United Stated. They should be contractually obligated to perform in the manner laid out in such a handbook. If they fail to uphold their end of the contract, they should be dealt with in such a way as is most beneficial to the company. We, as owners, should be able to set these terms. It should be laid out in as simple, yet the most all-inclusive way possible.  

Mark Levin has a new book called the Liberty Amendments. In it he lays out how we, the people, through Article V of the Constitution can make amendments through a process on state levels. Congress will never make amendments that would curtail their power. The days of such men in office has passed, long passed. We cannot count on them to police themselves any longer. We need to be able to set the rules and enforce them. This "employee handbook" is my proposal to reign in the power hungry employees who have taken over the business and now dictate to the owners. 

The time has come for us to take our country back.

California Gun Grabbing

Two recent stories that caught my attention should send chills down your spine. The first talks about a recent session inside the Public Safety Committee of the California State Legislature. In that meeting, a total of six bills were advanced out of committee. All six bills are gun-grabbing measures advanced by the usual suspects in war on the second amendment. As part of the process, the committee heard testimony from both sides of the argument. One exchange featured Leland Yee, state senator and Sam Paredes, Executive Director of Gun Owners of California. During this exchange, Paderes called Yee out and corrected the fallacy that because of some "loophole" in a previous gun ban, there were now illegal guns on the street. Yee confronted Paderes and let his anger over being called out over his misrepresentations be known. You can read the story for yourself here, Inside the Committee. You can also watch just the video exchange between Yee and Paredes.

If Yee put half as much energy into getting criminals off of the streets as he does into creating new criminals out of law-abiding citizens, he might actually do some good for the state. His misguided progressive vision of Californian Utopia prevents him from doing anything that actually advances the cause of freedom and upholds our constitutional rights. 

What troubles me, among many things, is illustrated by Yee every time he speaks on the subject. He has no idea what he is talking about. He ignores facts, makes up his own version of reality and uses this erroneous information to demolish the constitution which he is paid to and swore to uphold. He and his ilk are absolutely relentless in the pursuit of this end. Why do people continue to vote for people like Yee? I believe that there is a large chunk of society, that is otherwise smart enough to see the truth, that don't necessarily believe what these people say, but they want for it to be true. If they desire a thing to be true hard enough, maybe it will magically transform into truth. I don't know about you, but I don't like my liberties being decided by fairy tales. 

Another story highlights the recent resolution passed by the Los Angeles Community College board of trustees to ban all firearms on all nine of its campuses. This effectively put an end to gun safety courses that had been taught here for the past six years. These courses were co-sponsered by the National Rifle Association and taught by Gerry Koehler, an  NRA certified pistol instructor who is also certified by the California Dept of Justice for Handgun Safety training[1]. Koehler asked for an exception to use plastic toy guns in the classes, but they are specifically banned as well. No word on whether he could use Pop Tarts or not. The resolution goes so far as to ban use of the word "gun" in campus literature. That should make you feel safe. 

The lunacy of this is far reaching. Board of Trustees Vice President Scott Svonkin had some very interesting things to say regarding this decision. Among them, this:

“I believe that the NRA’s goal is to promote gun ownership, and that guns lead to deaths,” he said. “So, not having the NRA teach classes, not having the NRA classes on our campuses, is a good thing. I’m much happier with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department protecting our students and our staff and our faculty than having some random person who took a three-hour class and thinks that they’re Dirty Harry.”

The implication that the NRA's goal is the cause of death by gun violence is pathetic. No one on that side of this debate ever seems to take into account personal responsibility. It is always the fault of the gun or an organization or something other that the person perpetrating the crime. 

He is also happier with law enforcement protecting his campus. How happy was he when John Zawhari killed three people on campus before police could respond and kill him? This was after killing his father and brother then setting the house on fire. The same John Zawhari who several years earlier had threatened students and been found to have bomb-making materials in his possession. That infraction cost him the ability to own a firearm for 5 years. The killings took place seven years later. Maybe Leland Yee should think about a law where someone so demented should be locked away instead of counseled for a bit and then set free to do what he ultimately did. 

Svonkin didn't mention how well he thought law enforcement protected his students, he just took the opportunity to equate students taking a gun safety course to legally armed citizens who could have protected themselves and others and possibly saved lives in that incident. Oh, but they couldn't have done that, right? Because they are just "Dirty Harrys". No, because that campus was already a "gun free zone" at the time of the rampage. That rampage was part of the reason they widened the "gun free zone" to all nine campuses. Great plan, allowing a killer to come unchallenged onto the campus and take three lives worked so well, that they have extended the plan to create the same scenario in eight other places ripe with defenseless targets. It boggles the mind...

Koehler is the only one who had anything sensible to say regarding this:

“Don’t expect the police or the government to protect you. YOU are the only one that can protect you and your family. Learn how to do it right. Learn how to do it safely.”

Why should you not expect them to protect you? Isn't that their job, to serve and protect? Not according to the supreme court, who spoke to the matter in Castle Rock v Gonzalez in 2005. Its not just an opinion of some NRA approved Dirty Harry, it's the law. 

This is what I find scary. The law says, you are responsible for your own safety, yet the lawmakers are increasingly saying you are not responsible enough to defend yourself and are systematically taking your means to do so out of your hands. We can only hope that Sam Paderes and those like-minded individuals will ride this wave all the way to the supreme court and once there that the supreme court will uphold our second amendment rights as they have in the Heller decision. 

Is hope enough? Don't rely on it. Don't rely on others to speak up for your rights. Don't become dependent on someone who is not responsible for your safety and freedom. You are responsible. Be so. 

Trust

Trust me. We've all heard those words. We all have someone we trust, unconditionally. If they say they will do something, you can absolutely count on it. We've all had our trust taken for granted as well. Someone that we thought trustworthy let us down at a most inopportune time. It hurts. It is not so hard to build up trust, but it is extremely difficult to rebuild trust once broken. It's like bailing water out of a leaking boat using a bucket filled with holes. The only way to repair trust is to be trustworthy once again. Generally speaking, there is no way to rebuild it if it is broken a second time. The old adage, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" comes to mind. 

What is trust? It has been defined as the assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something;Confident expectation of something.

The question has been asked, repeatedly, do you trust the government. It was first asked, at least in a scientific poll back in November, 1958, during Eisenhower's second term as President. At that point, it was about 73% positive trust. It is currently(and I think optimistically) at 26% positive trust. What happened? With little exception, one being the Reagan era, the other being the post 9-11 patriotic surge in general sentiment, the rate of trust has hovered right around 30%. This graph appears in a Pew Research study on the subject[1]

What happened is that we have been inundated with so-called leaders that have shown themselves time and again to be untrustworthy. Moral character has not been a prevalent trait in our leaders for a long time. We have had scandal after scandal, abuse of power piled on top of itself, self-serving, liberty stealing individuals have dominated the national stage, and as such, public trust has plummeted. Is this a surprise? It shouldn't be. The government is not working that "fool me once/twice" game on us anymore, they are working the "fool me as many times as you can and dare me to do anything about it" game, and they have it down to a science.

Our founding fathers knew that our government's ability to defend and protect our liberty was dependent upon men of character being trusted with the task. They said so often. They knew, as wise men before them knew, that power corrupts. They argued about it, they debated the solutions and they wrote mechanisms into our constitution to battle such corruption. The problem we face, however, is that the corrupt have corrupted the process and found ways to ignore and supersede the protections. 

Alexander Hamilton, in January of 1790, said: 

States, like individuals, who observe their engagements, are respected and trusted: while the reverse is the fate of those who pursue an opposite conduct.

Fifteen years earlier, Samuel Adams said:

Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men.

Notice who he charged with keeping an eye on these scoundrels? You and I. We are responsible. While 26% of us seem to think they are trustworthy, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, 74% of us believe otherwise. It would be interesting to know the motivations behind those feelings of distrust. I suspect some of us "just feel" it. We need to be vigilant and stay on top of what is going on in Washington to the best of our abilities. We need to know how they have broken our trust. We need to share those reasons with others. We need to be careful though, we need research our facts so that when we are confronted, we can be sure about what we are saying. The danger of doing otherwise, is that we, ourselves, can become untrustworthy. For the sake of liberty, we need to be trustworthy. 

There is a reason for the motto, "In God We Trust". He is the only one worthy...

Back to School

It is that time of year when students venture into the first day of school in the classrooms of America, some for the first time, some for the last. Some are excited, some are nervous, some are scared and some couldn't care less. They are about to embark upon a year of learning. They may learn some incredibly valuable things over the next few months which will inform and direct their lives in a particular direction. They may learn some things that they never thought possible. They could learn concepts that send them in a direction towards the cure of cancer. They may learn that the guy two rows over that just stuck his tongue out at them will go on to be the best friend they will ever have. They may learn that with enough effort, anything is possible. They may learn that some people are just cruel. 

There is no end to the possibilities. The future is an empty canvas, waiting to be filled with the most magnificent beauty imaginable. We can't teach them what to paint, only that painting is possible. We can't teach them what to see, only that they need to open their eyes and look. There are many things that we can't teach, but there are none that can't be learned. Let the journey begin.

History is filled with great teachers. We all have our favorites, those who reached us in a way that others didn't. Those who reached out to us in ways no one else tried. Those who understood their role as teachers and the importance of that job. That teacher in my life was a man named Tommy Esslinger. He didn't teach classic literature, American history, physics or some other subject thought to be "important". What subject he taught is largely irrelevant. What he taught was what no textbook ever included. He taught me that I mattered. He took the time to let me know he genuinely cared for me, not so much for what skill I learned in his classes, but for me, a fellow human being. He was not always the nicest guy. But he was always genuine. He taught me one other thing that I am forever indebted to him for. He taught me that it was OK to make a mistake or to fail, but it was not OK to let the mistake win. Tommy Esslinger was the favorite teacher of many students who came into contact with him. This is not by chance. Mr. Esslinger was a great teacher. 

My wife and I debated at length about the education of our children. We finally decided that it was in their best interest to be home schooled. We are very fortunate to have someone in our lives who has helped us in this process, very fortunate. The things we try to teach them goes beyond reading, writing and arithmetic. We try to teach them everything that life will demand that they know if they are to be successful. At this point, the public schools here are not only abandoning those kinds of things, but they are teaching them things that are detrimental to that. 

Samuel Adams, while Governor of Massachusetts, addressed the legislature in 1794. Included in his speech was the following passage: (emphasis mine)

It has been observed, that "education has a greater influence on manners, than human laws can have." Human laws excite fears and apprehensions, least crimes committed may be detected and punished: But a virtuous education is calculated to reach and influence the heart, and to prevent crimes. A very judicious writer, has quoted Plato, who in shewing what care for the security of States ought to be taken of the education of youth, speaks of it as almost sufficient to supply the place both of Legislation and Administration. Such an education, which leads the youth beyond mere outside shew, will impress their minds with a profound reverence of the Deity, universal benevolence, and a warm attachment and affection towards their country. It will excite in them a just regard to Divine Revelation, which informs them of the original character and dignity of Man; and it will inspire them with a sense of true honor, which consists in conforming as much as possible, their principles, habits, and manners to that original character. It will enlarge their powers of mind, and prompt them impartially to search for truth in the consideration of every subject that may employ their thoughts; and among other branches of knowledge, it will instruct them in the skill of political architecture and jurisprudence; and qualify them to discover any error, if there should be such, in the forms and administration of Governments, and point out the method of correcting them. 

Show me a public school, especially one operating under the tragedy of Common Core teaching, where they will learn those things. Reverence of God? Love of country? Search for truth? I see just the opposite in many, many instances. 

I have no doubt that there are many great teachers in the system, I know several personally. I am confident that they do all they can to influence the students in their class in the ways that the Tommy Esslingers of the world do. What I do doubt, is that they have the freedom to do so effectively. The education system, as a whole, is a huge funnel, directing as many students as possible in a certain direction. I am not comfortable with that direction. I think it is dangerous and counter-productive to the future of our nation. 

I encourage you to research what your child is being taught, and how. Find out for yourself what is being splashed across your child's canvas. If you don't like what you see, do something about it. But don't wait too long, paint dries fast and they only have one canvas.

Thank you Mr. Esslinger for everything you did.

Audemus jura nostra defendere

Audemus jura nostra defendere

We Dare defend our rights! This is the motto of the State of Alabama. Taken from a poem by Sir William Jones, an eighteenth century English philologist titled "An Ode in Imitation of Alcaeus", also known as "What Constitutes a State". In that, he declares:

Men, who their duties know,But know their rights, and, knowing, dare maintain,
Prevent the long-aimed blow,And crush the tyrant while they rend the chain

It seems to be somewhat more common recently to question anyone who would dare quote or base opinions on that tired old document known as the Constitution of the United States of America. We've heard such dependence on and adherence to called into question by legislators at all levels, the President, courts, up to and including the Supreme court and of course, the media. We've even heard them question whether or not the Founders really meant what they said when they wrote it. 

I stand firm in my belief that not only did they mean what they said, but they were some of, if not the greatest visionaries the world has ever seen. They knew full well that we would encounter men who would make it their business to undo the freedoms that they expressed in their writings. The freedoms that Crispus Attucks, widely considered the first man to die in the American Revolution to Jamar Hicks, the most recent to die (as of this writing) in the ongoing war in Afghanistan, died for. The freedoms that roughly 2.75 millions Americans have died or been injured fighting to protect. The freedoms that have been and are now, systematically being rolled back, dismantled and outright abolished in many cases.

John Adams, a decade before the American Revolution, was already speaking of the necessity to defend our rights when he said: 

Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. 

James Madison, in 1792, said:

As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. 

We own our rights and we have the right to own them! A couple of days later, Madison wen on to say:

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own 

Our rights are to be protected by our government, not taken away!
There are so many wise words, far beyond the few I've quoted here on how important our rights are and to what extent we should go to protect them. 

You often hear the question, what would the founders do if they were alive today. I don't think that is difficult in the least to answer. Just read what they had to say. They would do everything in their power, which is well laid out in the Constitution, to return our rights to us and return our government to us, as it was designed, not this aberration that we have lording over us today. More than that, I think that the task they would face would be far less than that which we face, because they would have never let it become what it has. One things is for sure, they would wholeheartedly believe in the concept of audemus jura nostra defendere, we dare defend our rights!

Sam Adams summed it up well in 1771, when he said"

The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought.

Not only should we dare to defend our liberty, but we have a duty to do so. A duty! We have a call to be responsible with our liberty, for it is not ours alone, we share it with our fellow men. If one of us shirks this duty, it diminishes the ability for other men to fight for theirs! We are at a place in history where it seems there are more people who are denouncing their responsibility to fight for their liberty than there are those who are standing up for it. If this trend continues, we as a nation will lose the ability to stand up and proclaim, audemus jura nostra defendere!

I dare, do you?
  

Courage

Recently, I saw this photo that really struck me:

As with any photo, there is a story behind it. It turns out neither the guy about to die, nor the executioners are anyone I'd associate with. The guy was a member of the German Communists who were defeated, rounded up and executed in 1919. The armed squad were German Socialists, who would eventually give rise to the National Socialists. You probably remember them as the Nazi Party. All of that being what it is, this photo still says so much. The young man is defiant. He looks less scared than some of those holding rifles to me. The message I get from this photo is, you could not kill my spirit, so you are forced to kill me instead.

Now I certainly hope I'm never put into a position like this, nor anyone else for that matter, but I wish more people had this man's attitude right now. Stand for what you believe in!

This photo reminded me of another historical photo that speaks to me in a very similar way.

In this huge crowd of people who may either believe in whatever Nazi propaganda they are hearing or not, there is one guy who is not capitulating. All of the others have given up. Not him. He stands there with his arms crossed just daring anyone to question why he is not saluting. There almost seems to be a human buffer around him because no one wants to be mistaken as being with him. Maybe they just want to avoid the errant shot. Whatever the reason, they stand in support of something that he perceives as evil. He is the only one willing to stand for what he believes in. Granted, some of the crowd may have been taken in, but almost all of them seem to be civilians. Most civilians at that time still held that status because they had not joined the Nazi party. That is what leads me to my conclusion that he is one of the few that is standing for what he truly believes. We don't know the exact fate of this man, but we do know this. Live or die, he had courage.

That brings me to one more photo that I absolutely love.

I know nothing about the history of this photo except that it appears to be from World War 2. I have imagined what appears obvious. The soldier being carried was wounded to the point of not being able to walk. He has also lost his rifle, either literally or from lack of ammunition or the ability to fire it. His buddy gave up his ability to fight in order to carry him, who knows how far, through ankle deep mud while still being accosted by the enemy. The injured soldier returns fire with his side arm.

This photo speaks to me on a couple of levels. First, you are not out of the fight until you are no longer able to fight. Never give up! Second, never leave a man behind. This guy is risking his own life to save his injured comrade. This photo is one of my favorites from World War 2. There are a lot of great photos out there, some depicting some incredibly important, transcendent and historical moments, but this one tells an incredible story. 

All three of these photos speak loudly to the value of human spirit. In the face of some of the most horrible situations men have ever faced and most of humanity will never face, courage shined through. We should take these example and be inspired by them. What our nation is facing right now is bad, no doubt about that. Are we, as individuals, facing situations as perilous as these four guys though? Well, that is debatable. In the present, probably not. But if we don;t have the courage to stand up fpr what we believe in, for what believe to be right, then we may as well be facing the same thing these guys faced. If we don;t stand now, we may actually face something like this in the future. I'm not trying to be an alarmist, but I would bet that none of these men felt they would have to face what they are facing in these photos 5 years before they were taken. I would imagine, based on these photos, if they did know what they would be facing, they would have stood even more firm in resistance. 

I don't know about you, but if there is a way to turn things around by standing up now for what I believe in, I find that much more appealing than having to stand up the way these men did, after the fact. You may not feel that you need to stand up now, but I wonder what you'll feel if you ever have to stand and face what these men faced. I much prefer the former over the latter.

Abraham Lincoln had something to say about this. Consider these two quotes and then determine for yourself, where and how you stand.

Be sure you put your feet in the right place, then stand firm.

 

I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.

Ambushed: A Comparison

If you were in a war and found yourself in an ambush situation, there are a few things you would rely heavily on to stay alive. 

Movement- A stationary target soon becomes a dead target.

Return fire- Take every opportunity to shoot back. If you can eliminate the threat, you don't die.

Firepower- Pull out the biggest, meanest weapon you have. Don't rely on a .45 when you have an M16.

Ammunition- If you don't have enough ammunition, you may as well not have a gun.

Support- If you have buddies around you or even better, air support to drop the big guns on them, use them.

Training/Intelligence- The skills you have been taught and as much information as you can find about the current situation.

Tenacity- Use every skill and trick that you know to keep your enemy off balance and on the run.

Perseverance- Never give up.

If you were to employ all of these, together, you would stand a decent chance of not only surviving, but winning your battle. You could also be defeated. If you take that attitude into a battle, however, you have given yourself a huge setback right from the start. General Eisenhower once said, "Pessimism never won any battle". If you don't think you can win, why are you there in the first place? Knowing that you may die, but fighting like you have to win, means the battle is worth fighting. If a battle is worth fighting, then it's worth fighting to the finish and fighting to win. 

We need lawmakers who understand that this can apply to any battle they face, not just one where bad guys are trying to shoot you with an AK-47. How does this apply to congress? 

Movement. Don't just stand still and become complacent. The status quo will get nothing done. Being conservative does not, as some would have you believe, mean fighting change. If you want to define so simply, it means fighting against progressives and their freedom destroying ideals and fighting for those freedoms that are God given and constitutionally protected. They need to get busy. Don't just stand there and watch our country fall further into the post-constitutional soft tyranny that it is rapidly becoming. We aren't paying them to hold the carpet down in congress, we are paying them to work, for us. 

Return fire. When we are in the minority, it seems to become the modus operendi to just try and rely on "no" votes. News flash, when you are in the minority, "no" won't do it. They need to fire back with every tool they have. Create useful legislation. Put people's feet to the fire by bringing votes to the floor. Work behind the scenes in committees. Use the power that they have, and they have many. Stand in front of every camera that presents itself and get the message out to the public. Let the public join the fight in contacting their representatives. There are countless ways to fight back, but occasionally pointing the legislative "weapons" that they possess will do nothing unless they pull the trigger!

Firepower. Pull out the big guns, don't just sit around occasionally firing a cap gun. We have a few Senators that are not afraid to make some noise in this manner, far too few. When Rand Paul stood up and filibustered for half a day, it made noise, a lot of noise. He was cheered wildly from one side and attacked viciously from the other. He was noticed, to say the least. When Ted Cruz stands up and speaks his mind, people know it. When he challenged Dianne Feinstein over the second amendment, she was visibly upset. Although I'm sure she has spoken, I can't remember very much news about her since that happened. This was a freshman Senator taking on an establishment Senator that has been in office for over twenty years. He was armed to the teeth when he did that. A constitutional lawyer who argued the Heller decision before the Supreme Court taking on a lifetime politician who doesn't know the difference between a handgun and a rifle. These and a few others are not afraid to stand up and speak for what is right, regardless of any perceived consequences they may incur. We need more who will use the power that they have been given to do what the people expect of them.

Ammunition. Occasionally one will stand up and fire a shot off. Then the progressive machines throws a fusillade back at them and they slink back behind their desk and start worrying about re-election. What they need to do is re-load! Facts are deadly to the left. There is a never-ending supply of facts on most of the issues that we face, from gun control to health care to environmental issues. Nothing irritates me more that when some well-meaning person uses the phrase in a gun control debate, "guns don't kill people...", and then have not mush else to say. They are right in that statement, but it is useless by itself. There is an almost unlimited amount of data surrounding this issue. Why won't they use them? John Lott has written several extremely useful books on the subject. He is not alone. We need to get these facts into the fight. This issue is only one of the many examples where this is true.

Support. When Rand Paul filibustered, he started out alone. When he finished, it was standing room only, not just in the Senate chambers, but around the country. He had people like Cruz and Lee and dozens of others take stretches of his time to not only give him a breather, but also to throw a few volleys of their own. We sometimes see one of them reach out to the public for assistance on various issues, petitions, rallies and the like. We need to see them call for support from experts on issues, from each other and from the general public more often. Ronald Reagan reached out to the public often, with great success. One Senator doesn't stand much of a chance against the other ninety-nine. But one Senator with a great idea who can enunciate that to his comrades and to the millions of constituents across the country can soon amass an undefeatable force. They need to be willing to not only ask for help, but accept it when offered. 

Training/Intelligence. I keep using Ted Cruz as an example because he is such a good one. He is an expert in constitutional law. I suspect he and many of our representatives were schooled in debate. We have doctors, lawyers, military, businessmen and who knows what other areas of expertise representing us in Washington. All have a unique set of qualifications and educational experiences. Yet when they get there, most seem to forget that and just engage in verbal jousting. This is falling into the trap and the method of the progressives. They need to use what they know to take the fight to them, not let the other side use what they know to accomplish this endless cycle of derision while they pass unconstitutional liberty-killing laws behind our backs. They also have an unlimited network that can keep them up to speed on what is going on. They need to use this intelligence. How often do we here, "I don't know" when asked a question on an issue? They should be well versed on the issues and able to speak clearly about them. Ignorance is no excuse.

Tenacity. This is a tactic where conservatives could learn a thing or two from progressives. If the left loses a vote, they bring another. If that fails, they use some administrative agency or executive order. If that fails, they bring a lawsuit. If that fails, they do it anyway. Meanwhile, the progressive mouthpieces, like Jackson, Sharpton, Moore, Gore and the media never stop spewing rhetoric and shouting down their opponents. The progressives have been working hard at turning this country upside down since the late 1800's, and they have made huge strides in doing so. Those of us who wish to see the country returned to the guiding principles that the founding fathers put into place have been complacent, at best, collectively. We too often think the next election or next vote can turn things around. Remember how long long it has taken the progressives to get us into this position, it will probably take us that long to get it back if we ever get ourselves together. We cannot sit back and hope something changes. We have to change it and we have to be ever vigilant as we do so. The progressive never stops attacking, we have to have that mentality if things are to be changed.

Perseverance. Once we get all of that together, we cannot stop, ever. If this country is ever to remain what it was founded to be, we have to be constantly on guard. Evil isn't going away any time soon, and until it does, we have to guard against it. We, those who love and remember why we exist as a nation, are not just the best hope, we are the only hope. We need to return to, depend on and defend those principles that made America the great nation that it was and can be again. We need leaders, from among us, that will stand for these ideals.

Cicero once said:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

Our biggest battle for the survival of this nation has not and will not be fought on the battlefields of the world, it has been and will continue to be fought in the halls and chambers of our houses of government. On every level from school boards to city councils to the houses of congress in Washington DC. We cannot lose this battle.

Illegitimi non carborundum

I watched a film a while back called,  Agenda:Grinding America Down. In the film, there was a phone message left by an older gentleman to a state representative. He was giving his support for a position the representative had taken on an issue. He ended the brief call by saying, "don't let them grind you down". The sincerity of the man along with the message and specifically, this phrase, struck me. I began using the phrase quite a bit when giving support to people, mainly on Twitter. It seemed to be a very appropriate thing to say to encourage someone to keep up the good fight. I love the phrase. 

Last week, after posting a letter I had written to quite a few state representatives regarding multiple new pieces of gun control legislation I oppose, A friend of mine, who I admire, politely suggested that maybe I should be careful about voicing such an opinion to those in positions of power in our government. His thought was that I could very easily end up on some list targeted by the government. My response in part said that if I wasn't already on every list they have, someone wasn't doing their job properly. I suspect, as many list as exist, I am on a number of them for various reasons. My stance on liberty, the constitution, gun rights, abortion, environmental issues and displeasure with our current president among others. They know I'm out here. I want them to know that I'm out here.

When I thought about what my friend said, it really illustrated a large part of the problem to me. The powers that be want for us to be silent. They want for us to be afraid to speak up. They want for us to slide back into the herd and let them lead us around the pastures of their choosing. People that speak the truth are a danger to this administration. As long as truth exists, they can;t hide behind lies. Truth exists on its on, but it also needs a voice to proclaim it to those who are otherwise deaf and blind to it. 

As I was thinking about writing this, I was drawn back to the phrase, "don't let them grind you down". That is the goal, to shout down those that would speak the truth, to badger them into submission, and to silence them and the truth they proclaim. I will not, willingly, be silenced. I don't think anyone who chooses to speak up should ever bend to the pressures to be quiet. The progressives/liberals/statists use this as one of their main tactics to get what they want. Silence the opposition and the opposition, in essence, goes away. 

I was trying to remember, specifically, where I heard the phrase so I could include it here. It took me a few minutes to dig it up, but in the process, I found all kinds of information on it. Information I had previously been unaware of. It originated during World War II and has been used by General "Vinegar Joe" Stillwell, Barry Goldwater and oddly enough, current speaker of the house, John Boehner(who has seemed to do just the opposite and let them grind him down). Illegitimi non carborundum is the phrase originally used and is a kind of fake Latin aphorism meaning "Don;t let the bastards grind you down". Learning this, I was even more enamored with the gentleman in the movie who used the phrase. I can only guess, he knew more of it's history than I did. 

Our founders and others knew the importance of being able to speak our minds. The first amendment to the constitution tells us this to begin with. Freedom of speech is essential in maintaining liberty. Benjamin Franklin wrote years before:

Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.

Frederick Douglass said of free speech:

To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

Charles Bradlaugh, a famous atheist who I disagree with on many things, said:

Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful.

With that, I agree whole-heartedly. This is the beauty of free speech, it gives those with a voice, the freedom to use it. We don't have to agree with what is being said, but we must agree with our rights to say it. If we abridge unpopular speech, we have essentially abridged speech of any kind, especially in the partisan world in which we live today.

I believe that we not only have the freedom to speak up, but we have a responsibility to do so. I spoke of this in my initial post here. You can read that if you would like to know more of my thoughts on that. Responsible Liberty

If we don't take an active role in our own freedom, who will? Our government is one that is hell-bent on removing the freedoms that we so enjoy. If we don't speak up, we might just soon find out that our silence is no longer optional.

Illegitimi non carbonundrum! Don't let them grind you down!