FWT Homepage Translator

Friday, May 22, 2009

Is It Worth Killing Someone?

***** WARNING!!! *****

This dangerously illegal and immoral subversive underground resistance message is being surreptitiously monitored by the Beaming Internet Government Broadband Radio Oscillation Telecommunications Hearing Electronic Reconnaissance (i.e., B.I.G. B.R.O.T.H.E.R.) as part of a coordinated official clandestine domestic surveillance investigation, in cooperation with the National Administration of Zealous Interrogation (i.e., N.A.Z.I.) and the Commission On Message Monitoring Investigative Electronics (i.e., C.O.M.M.I.E.).

Serious felony criminal charges are pending, with extreme penalties yet to be determined!


Greetings and Salutations to All my Kith and Kin and All the Ships in Outer Space:

It's my understanding that there currently is proposed legislation in Congress which would require every new act to be subjected to a test of whether or not it would violate the Constitution of the United States.

If that's true, I'm certainly all for it, and I hope it passes, although considering the rampant blatant corruption in our existing government administration, I doubt it will.

However, I'd like to see something else also considered, not only in Congress, but also in state legislatures, county commissions, city councils, and each and every university law school.

No, I'm not going to cite any scholarly references, for what I'm writing is strictly my own musings, from within my own mind.

I'm no recognized expert, with a degree or testimonial of higher education, nor the erudite author of pedantic tomes.

I'm just me, and I have to admit, that ain't much.

But, I'm wondering about something, and I think it's worthwhile enough that other folks should also be wondering, too.

Every so often, we see on television where newly elected political representatives are given a formal orientation class, prior to being sworn in and seated in Congress.

I've never been to one of those orientation sessions, and I don't know anyone who has.

But, there's a fundamental issue which every elected or appointed public official, whether federal, state, or local, should be cognizant of.

Those public officials, most of whom are professional attorneys, are anxiously engaged in burdening the populace with lots of newly enacted legislation.

Whether it's a federal or state statute, or a city or county ordinance, regardless of the intended seriousness of the subject, the impact will be the same.

It matters not if the newly enacted law deals with taxes, public nuisances, property crime, animal treatment, personal conflicts, religious expression, child welfare, vehicle operation, or whatever the purpose of whatever legislation.

The ultimate test of any law is its enforcement by the police officer or soldier, with their imminent threat of lethal force.

If a citizen, for whatever reason, refuses to comply with any law, even if it's a minor infraction of a seemingly unimportant local city ordinance, the test will be enforcing the penalty for violating that law.

Is there a fine?

What if the violator(s) refuses to pay the fine?

Assuming police are then ordered to arrest the violator(s), suppose the violator(s) refuses to submit?

As the situation escalates, we eventually see the ultimate level of citizen defiance, resulting in maximum physical violence, or even an exchange of gunfire.

Thus, human injuries and/or fatalities occur, whether just the resisting violator(s), and/or the arresting authority.

The Waco Massacre, and the shoot out at Ruby Ridge, Idaho are two (02) examples of this, where government agencies (at every level, not just federal) were publicly embarrassed, as the horrendous deaths were completely unnecessary.

Indeed, if there had been no massacre at Waco, Texas, there never would have been an attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

I just think that students in law schools around the nation should be constantly reminded, again and again, of the impact their legal decisions may have.

Likewise, judges, appointed officials, and elected representatives at every level of government, need to be repeatedly cautioned about the potentially supreme effect of their pet legislative projects.

When a newly written act is being discussed and voted on, the question must be asked, "Is this issue serious enough to be worth killing someone over?"

What are some of the proposed legislative acts that are currently being discussed in the news?

I know there's a bunch of them, but right at the moment, as I'm typing this, I can't focus on any particular item.

But, you still know what I mean.

Are any of those worth taking a human life, if enforcement efforts so require?

There are so many laws, with new ones rapidly being added on a daily basis, I can't even keep track of them, nor can any other average citizen.

To be perfectly honest, we already have far too many laws, and responsible government representatives really should eliminate a whole bunch of existing laws, before even contemplating enacting any new ones.

Not only that, almost every law, such as the onerous anti-American and flagrantly unconstitutional U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, are written in language unfathomable by the average citizen.

So, once again, I raise the question:

Is the issue being considered so serious, as to warrant killing someone over?

That is the ultimate impact and penalty of every single law, no matter how mundane or mediocre it might appear.

I reckon a logical extension of this argument might be, at what point are we citizens justified in armed revolt against our legally (or otherwise) constituted government authorities?

Yes, an uprising against our government will entail citizens violently murdering fellow citizens. which might include even kith and kin, as has been the case in previous popular revolts throughout documented history.

We aren't the first to wrestle with this moral quandary.

Whenever the smoldering fires of individual liberty have erupted against the unbearable constraints of despotic tyranny, it has ever been thus.

So, whether it be a career politician, or a zealous rebel, we all have to decide:

Is this particular issue so serious, that it is worth killing someone over?

Thank you.

John Robert Mallernee
Official Bard of Clan Henderson
Armed Forces Retirement Home
Washington, D.C. 20011-8400

NOTE: "My unpopular and controversial personal opinions are independent of my Scottish clan."

No comments: