Most Americans should be ashamed to celebrate the Fourth
What an inconvenient holiday the Fourth of July has become.
Oh, so long as we stick to grilling hot dogs and hamburgs, hauling
the kids to the lake or the mountains, and winding up the day
watching the fireworks as the Boston Pops plays the 1812 -- written
by a subject of the czar to celebrate the defeat of our vital
ally the French -- we can usually manage to convince ourselves
we still honor the same values that made July 4, 1776, a date
which rings in history.
Great Britain taxed the colonists at far lower rates than Americans
tolerate today -- and never dreamed of granting government agents
the power to search our private bank records to locate "unreported
income." Nor did the king's ministers ever attempt to stack
our juries by disqualifying any juror who refused to swear in
advance to "leave your conscience outside and enforce the
law as the judge explains it to you."
The king's ministers insisted the colonists were represented by
Members of Parliament who had never set foot on these shores.
Today, of course, our interests are "represented" by
one of two millionaire lawyers -- both members of the incumbent
Republicrat Party -- among whom we were privileged to "choose"
last election day, men who for the most part have lived in mansions
and sent their kids to private schools in the wealthy suburbs
of the imperial capital, for decades.
Yet the colonists did rebel. It's hard to imagine, today, the
faith and courage of a few hundred frozen musketmen, setting off
across the darkened Delaware, gambling their lives and farms on
the chance they could engage and defeat the greatest land army
in the history of the known world, armed with only two palpable
assets: one irreplaceable man to lead them, and some flimsy newspaper
reprints of a parchment declaring: "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 to these
Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it. ..."
Do we believe that, still?
Recently, President Clinton's then-Drug Czar, Lee Brown, told
me the role of government is to protect the people from dangers,
such as drugs. I corrected him, saying, "No, the role of
government is to protect our liberties."
"We'll just have to disagree on that," the president's
appointee said.
The War for American Independence began over unregistered, untaxed
guns, when British forces attempted to seize arsenals of rifles,
powder and ball from the hands of ill-organized Patriot militias
in Lexington and Concord. American civilians shot and killed scores
of these government agents as they marched back to Boston. Are
those Minutemen still our heroes? Or do we now consider them "dangerous
terrorists" and "depraved government-haters"?
In "The Federalist" No. 46, James Madison told us we
need have no fear of any federal tyranny ever taking away our
rights, arguing that under his proposed Constitution "the
ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," and
predicting that any usurpation of powers not specifically delegated
would lead to "plans of resistance" and "appeal
to a trial of force."
Another prominent federalist, Noah Webster, wrote in 1787: "Before
a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body
of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any
band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in
the United States."
Is this still true today? Or are those who arm themselves and
make contingency "plans of resistance" against government
usurpations instead branded "conspirators" and "terrorists,"
and ridiculously associated with Timothy McVeigh (who was kicked
out of the only militia meeting he is ever known to have attended
-- in Michigan -- and whose actions surely reflect more directly
on the screening process of the outfit that gave him his training
in munitions -- the United States Army.)
In Phoenix last week, an air conditioner repairman and former
Military Policeman named Chuck Knight was convicted by jurors
-- some tearful -- who said they "had no choice" under
the judge's instructions, on a single federal "conspiracy"
count of associating with others who owned automatic rifles on
which they had failed to pay a $200 "transfer tax" --
after a trial in which defense attorney Ivan Abrams says he was
forbidden to bring up the Second Amendment as a defense.
Were the Viper Militia readying "plans of resistance,"
as recommended by Mr. Madison? Would the Constitution ever have
been ratified, had Mr. Madison and his fellow federalists warned
the citizens that such non-violent preparations would get their
weapons seized, and land them in jail for decades?
Happy Fourth of July.
***
Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor
of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may
contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site
for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/.
.
Back to Modern Militiaman #6
Back to The Patriot Coalition?
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line
.