Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Guest
Author:  J. J. Jackson
Bio: J. J. Jackson
Date:  January 22, 2011
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

A Call For Reason
A pamphlet on the superiority of Liberty and calling for it’s rebirth among Americans

My fellow Americans, I appeal to you that reason dictates to all that men can only exist in one of a few limited conditions while they are upon this Earth. I also submit to you for your consideration, and ultimately your acceptance after reasonable debate, that illogic and non-reason will masquerade in the guise of reason to try and subvert any discussion of this truth and that it will seek to lead us to the most unwelcome and unkind of these conditions.

A Call for Reason (Part I) - The Conditions Of Mankind:

My fellow Americans, I appeal to you that reason dictates to all that men can only exist in one of a few limited conditions while they are upon this Earth. I also submit to you for your consideration, and ultimately your acceptance after reasonable debate, that illogic and non-reason will masquerade in the guise of reason to try and subvert any discussion of this truth and that it will seek to lead us to the most unwelcome and unkind of these conditions. Further, I believe, that we all can accept that it is important that when seeking to tell right from wrong, reason from illogic, that it is important to see if there is indeed a mask to be lifted on that which comes before you and claims to be reason.

This is why I ask your indulgence with the following dissertation. Because I want you to be confident inasmuch as what I am about to discuss is reason and not illogic hidden behind a mask to deceive you into making a non-reasoned and ill advised choice.

With regards to the conditions in which man can exist in I submit that there are in truth but only three.

First, is that they can exist in a state of absolute anarchy; unbridled freedom where all men constantly look out for only their own betterment in an irrational and chaotic ballet. In such a state each man rises or falls purely by his own strength and cunning only to be outdone by one that is more so than he. While this sounds grand to a point, there is a downside when explored further. In such a state the only rights that any man has are those that he is able to take and hold by his own prowess. All persons must therefore constantly look over his or her own shoulders for the next threat to what he has or she has gained and be prepared to defend their gains by force.

Here, in this state of existence, if one can take a tract of land and defend it from all others that would desire that land then one inherently has a “right” to that land until someone else is able to take it from him. Here a man or woman only has a right to live so long as no other person wishes him or her dead and is capable of completing such a task.

While man can certainly exist in such a condition, I suggest that he does not and cannot remain there for more than an instance of history because of man’s social nature and intelligence. These things make it impossible for absolute anarchy to remain viable because the intelligence of those who are weaker individually allows them learn quickly that the best means to compete against the stronger, more cunning and better equipped is to form some sense of an accord and enter into a tribe or other type of society. Man’s social nature also drives even the strongest to also seek out companionship either through willing agreement by all parties or through forced coercion by the strongest if only for the most basic of urges and the propagation of the species. Both of these realities lead to an order which will arise and once one has order, there cannot be anarchy.

So I actually I must admit and appeal to you that man can only truly exist in one of two states, both of which are societal, once this first of anarchy and loneliness is found to be untenable to the basic nature of man. I must appeal to you that man must either exist in a state of societal liberty or a state of societal oppression and slavery. The path chosen by the society so formed depends entirely on those that form it and those that from that point onward exist within it.

Man is a creature that learns from his experiences. And as such some will learn the best state for themselves is one in which all men mutually agree to rightfully and properly defend one another from harm by others. This state is called liberty. For others however this learning inherent to the nature of mankind leads them to desire a state in which they seek to further their own desires by placing themselves above others. This is a state where many are oppressed by the few for the sole betterment of these few. Societies, as mere collections of men, are subject to these same opposing forces being constantly pulled to and fro and between groups of men that have learned how best to secure the good, the equality of all, the right and the proper and those groups of men that have learned how best to secure their power above all else, the bad and the wrong. So within any society there are those that prefer liberty and there are those that will prefer oppression of others, and perhaps even themselves, for either power or security respectively.

Man is an imperfect creature. Only the most noble of the species have truly the well being of all in their best interests at all times. And I dare say that perhaps not a single man has ever existed that would fall wholly into that category except for Christ himself.

In comparison and by conjunction all collections of men and their societies are also imperfect. But how imperfect they are depends on the majority disposition of those within them. When collections of men, by majority, hold dearest their own rights and by correlation the rights of all mankind as descended upon us from God and at least strive for perfection based on such, societies are good. These societies and those within them, by majority, understand that it is in their own best interest to secure liberty for all because they know that their own majority, and hence power, within the culture is likely fleeting in the history of it. Inherently these societies are jealous of any encroachments upon individual liberties regardless of the person being harmed or threatened. They covet their unalienable rights because they fear the loss of their own at the hands of a new majority that may arise at some point within such a society.

Even if each member differs slightly in the fineries of what exactly entails liberty, the fact that the majority is jealous of even the slightest encroachment upon their liberty holds such societies in a state of near perfection. This near perfection comes in a form where each member is allowed to pursue their own liberty while not infringing upon that of another man lest anarchy ensue. While the individuals are not perfect, and perhaps even far from it, the whole approaches perfection through a joint distrust of creeping authority and regulation and an understanding that power is fleeting and that those who rule today will not rule tomorrow and that respecting the rights of all is the best way to ensure that the rights of all will be carried forward even when a new administration arises.

In a state of liberty the societal structure put forth is where government exists as a necessary evil to maintain as much freedom for each individual member as can be granted without the freedoms of another being infringed. In such societies individual citizens are free to contract with one another for goods and services and interact without interference from others regardless of status and power and each may seek redress when true, real and measurable harm befalls them at the hand of others. In such a society the bounds of what one man can do is limited only by what are the rights of all men and of those that he interacts with as well as his own innate abilities. It is a state where government does not poke and prod the people in a direction the government deems fit for them to travel. It is a state where the rights of one are the rights of the whole; where my rights are yours and yours are mine and never shall the two cross.

Such societies enact government for the sole purpose of defending those under it from harms both internal and external and provide only the most basic of functions to allow each man and woman within them to rise and fall based on their own ability, choices, drive and yes, even luck. Such basic functions are, as previously said, only those that do not infringe upon rights equally held and as such are by definition limited since growth beyond being merely basic would inherently infringe on the rights of someone.

In libertarian societies of conservative government, action from the seat of administration is restricted while actions by those that live within these societies are less bound but not entirely boundless. There is no inherent right to infringe on the rights of others or establish a duty upon other individuals to help further another’s own betterment.

On the other hand, when these same collections of men as previously mentioned, by majority, decide that others are put upon this Earth to serve them and that their desires trump the inalienable rights of man, societies turn bad. They become rotted to their core upon such thoughts. Inherently persons in such societies are not jealous of encroachments upon their liberties but only encroachments to their power over others and are interested in only what they may receive by the authority of the State and from the coffers of the State which has been taken from another for them.

In a state of oppression, the societal structure put forth is where government allows a similar state to the untenable infringements that would exist under the state of anarchy. Except that instead of individuals taking that which they can by their singular means without limit, they have now moved to organize others to aid them in such a pursuit from the start. Whereas in anarchy the individually strong take what they desire without regards for the unalienable rights of others and survive by means of their personal superiority, in the state of oppression what others have is taken by the strongest group that is desirous of it and through their own group superiority rather than the strongest individual only.

Such societies, by nature, require that rights belonging to some be trampled for benefits to be granted to the superior group or even groups. They become collectives wherein rights are not equally applied to all. They become gatherings where some of what one has is taken to enhance what another does not possess and believes they should have as well as to maintain the machinery and ultimately making miserable the productive members of such a society.

When the property or industriousness of one is taken by another or group of citizens and a claim is put upon it through force the argument becomes accepted that someone else has a greater right to such things than the person from which it emanated. It leads to the popular dictum that some are more equal than others.

Witness to the horrors of what such ideology brings has been seen throughout history. Racial based slavery in the southern states early in the record of our own country is just one such example where the rights of one group were taken to benefit another without the recourse of just government. The acts of NAZI Germany under Chancellor Hitler where the very lives of the Jews and other “undesirables” were taken as punishment for pretended crimes are but another glaring example. This list is not to be completed with just these two examples but to discuss all of them that have occurred would take volumes and not be practical for the space reserved here. I believe that you as an intelligent being can fully flush out this list in your own mind and allow me to move forward with this discussion.

Now, noticing the contrasts of these two ideologies previously described, there can be little doubt that all men being created equal with the same rights and privileges to be stripped only as recourse when they have harmed the rights and privileges of others, and been so found guilty by a jury of their peers, is by reason, a sound balance to maintain. It puts all on equal footing to use their talents to the best of their own ability while accepting that others can and should do the same. If they cheat, if they steal, or if they do harm to another the society punishes them justly. But if they are just better at doing what they do than others then the society leaves them to pursue their liberty.

Just as was previously stated in the reverse, there can be little doubt that when any man or group of men seeks to harm others by denying them their God given rights that the evil and enslavement that follows is neither sound nor balanced. It in fact grows exponentially upon itself as decisions of right and wrong stem no longer from a constant but from imperfect men continually attempting to manage an enforced and arbitrary balance which they have deemed should exist to support themselves above others. Such societies put certain groups artificially ahead of all other groups and inherently make them and the people contained within them unequal to those that are not part of the superior group.

Within societies there always exists a fight; a struggle where the good and the bad are in precarious balance. There is always a struggle between those that seek liberty and those that seek enslavement or to enslave. And I compel you to consider my words of what becomes of societies where the later dominates and is true as the many historical examples from which we can learn will show.

Do they not become societies where some citizens have the fruits of their own genius and labor taken from them by force, often at gun point and with threat of prison or even death should those citizens not acquiesce, to better those that have never developed such talents of their own? History shows that they do.

Do they not become societies where some better themselves on the unwilling backs of others? History, again sadly, shows that they do.

Do they not become societies of masters who command and slaves who must follow? Invariably the answer is yes.

A Call for Reason (Part II) - Why Inalienable Rights?:

You no doubt have the reason to understand why inalienable rights exist and why their pursuit and defense once captured by the public is true and noble. As a reasoned being you have no doubt the wisdom to understand that of which I just spoke where societies that promote liberty are good and those that seek oppression are bad and that such good or bad stems from how well inalienable rights are preserved within the citizenry.

But indulge me if you will as I put my own thoughts, which I am sure are your own, out before you naked and boldly for the purpose already stated; to leave no doubt that such is not illogic masquerading as reason.

I hold not that inalienable rights are best because they are simply said to be immutable. Perish that thought from you minds, because anything can be contrived as being such. Rather I hold that they are best because they are just as well as truly immutable.

One must consider diligently what the best foundation for a society to be based on is. Should it be based on the foundation of simple decrees by a man or groups of men as to what the rules for the day should be? Would these rules most likely be as ever changing as the loose and shifting sand on the beach as it is pounded by the ocean waves? Would they not stand the highest chance of change with each new ruler bringing in a new tide?

What becomes of any structure based on such a foundation? Does it not crack and eventually fall if the groundwork is not sound and immutable?

But immutability alone is not, as I have said, a good enough standard. For it is true that a long succession of like minded rulers unkind to liberty would likely maintain potentially very similar rules, if not exactly the same ones, if all were inclined to the same purpose. If such rules, which are now essentially immutable, are bad the structure that is built upon them, such as any foundation poorly constructed, may not fall at the moment but those living within would surely suffer. This is true because in the long term these rules shall fail to properly support the society.

So I say and confirm your own reasoned thoughts that only immutable and good laws provide the stable foundation for any structure and also a good quality of living for those within it. At the risk of offending those in the vast minority who have decided that they shall not believe in the clear and present God, I submit that such laws from God fit just such a purpose and a means by which to build a great society. Such laws become inalienable; beyond the reach of any man or society of men to grasp and take away.

I submit to you that God in commandments five through ten speaks of how man should interact with his fellow man. The first four commandments I submit to you are God’s commandments to the individual as to how to conduct their own relationship with God. Thus God gave us a blueprint for both society in the latter and a blueprint for the personal in the former.

This however is not a dissertation on how man should worship his God and the first of these commandments. Such would be a fool’s errand as from man to man few have ever agreed upon the proper way to pay homage to the Creator. It is best that we leave such be and consider that we should start from a basis, considering each of the major religions agree in principle upon these commandments, that our first principle should be to respect the right of others to pay homage to God in our own way so long as we are not violating the later laws.

Instead we should focus on and examine how God commands us to interact with our fellow man and determine if they be just and good for the formation of society. In the later commandments He speaks that we should honor our parents and our elders, not commit murder, not steal, not lie, and not to covet the belongings of others. He also dictates that men and women should not commit adultery which, I profess to you, falls under the category of not lying since the act requires at least one of the offenders to have broken an oath of faithfulness to another.

Even just a cursory examination of these basic tenants shows that they are good. How can anyone rooted in reason claim that it is not good to refrain from lying or taking from someone else that which has not been worked for and earned through contract or been given through voluntary charity? How can anyone with the highest of reason claim that it is not good to refrain from willfully taking the life of another that has not infringed upon you, your neighbor or another without cause such as in defense against aggression? How can one say that it is not good for children to be respectful of their elders or each of us respectful of each other?

I, as just one of you, do not see how these can be seen as otherwise good and I dare say that such theories are not even offensive to those who chose to ignore the evidence and wisdom of God’s hand and Creation.

Now, just as I risked offended any of you who have chosen to not believe in God I do not want those ardent in their faith to decry the exception of the first four laws from this examination. I mean you certainly no disrespect considering my own faith in the laws of God. But as I have mentioned, those commandments are dictates from God to the individual and should remain so. To make them anything more runs the risk of offending any of the various sects and their means of honoring God, their modes worship, their rites of keeping the Sabbath Holy and so on. It also grants too much potential power to those in authority who may see such practices as not in line with the way that they believe such practices should be. As a race of beings we have been down the road of national Churches and such a failed experiment was indeed a cause for many to have emigrated from foreign lands to these shores in order to avoid its strangling grasp and who did seek the ability to worship the Creator in their own way. One’s faith in God should be between that person and God and not between society and that person so long as their faith does not violate the laws that govern how man should interact with others and which are amiable to all regardless of whether they believe in the Creator or not.

Thus we have set forth the form of good government by defining which rights man has; life, property, self-defense, to be free from being falsely accused or slandered and to worship God as he or she sees fit. In essence man has the right to purse his own happiness as long as he does not infringe upon these rights of others.

What could be more true and just than that?

A Call for Reason (Part III) - Why Not Arbitrary Rules?:

Some of you, despite being persons of reason, may still ask the question – what is so wrong with arbitrary rules. Although I am not certain how anyone of reason could still be asking such a question, I will indulge it briefly.

If life should be like a game and have rules that should govern it like such a contest, is it conceivable that one may participate and have a chance at victory if the rules are to change from start to finish? Is it conceivable to imagine that one may be able to plan for the future and plot a course to victory if the laws are subject to change, perhaps in favor of the opponent, upon the whims of those in charge?

Of course not. And life is indeed like a game played on any field, table or board.

Only when rules are immutable can one, except by the sheer preponderance of luck or through the exertion of influence upon the judges, hope to have any chance at obtaining their pursuit be it victory in the game or a shot at their own happiness. Thus arbitrary rules are abhorrent to any reasoned man and we shall lay such foolishness that may promote otherwise to rest.

A Call for Reason (Part IV) - The Learning Of Man And The Enforcement of Liberty

I wish to digress slightly through the conspicuous view of our own history if I may. History my friends compels us to realize what is will cease, what was is no longer and what will be is yet to come. Reason, which I must continually implore from you as a rational being, also dictates that throughout time there will be both good and bad and that just because something was, is or will be does not dictate that it was, is or will be right or wrong.

Our own history shows us the results of societies which rule and encourage oppression. Even if this oppression is not necessarily exerted upon all of its citizens or even all citizens equally the result of such oppression is that it rips and divides societies until violent revolution comes. At such a time rivers run red with the blood of men and their brothers and the skies rain with the tears of wives and mothers. For nearly the entire first one hundred years after our independence and for many years prior, there existed within American society a tacit approval for the slavery of men for the betterment of others under false and wholly unreasonable assertions of the inferiority of certain races.

Nowhere else is the struggle between those that desire liberty and those that desire oppression more easily seen. For we were once a nation so clearly divided. But it also shows us how the reliance by those upon the oppression of others for their own betterment made them unable to survive as they had tried to. And this my friends is what I wish to bring to your attention; that societies of oppression make those that rely on such fundamentals weak even as they are empowered by those that would normally seek to promote liberty.

When a fellowship of patriots to an independent nation yet to be born, yet traitors to the nation to which they currently belonged, met in Philadelphia in June of 1776, the struggles between liberty and oppression were put on display. At the time all colonists under the English banner in America were oppressed. But there were three groups among them.

First, their were those that preferred the certainty of the bosom of a mother that would take care of them and wished to remain oppressed and chose to have their rights as dictated by a power higher than man or king infringed. They were the loyalists.

Second, was a group of men that were oppressed but also oppressors themselves. This is the group of men that themselves held others in bondage as they were held in bondage; the plantation and slave owners of the New World. They wanted liberty for themselves from those oppressing them, but they wanted to retain their right to oppress others for their own betterment. A truer contradiction was never seen, but many of them had sealed their own fates. They had become dependant upon those who they enslaved to the point where to lose such power would doom their own existence and commit themselves to potential suffering. Even basically good men fell into this trap and struggled with the duplicity of their desires.

The third was a group that abhorred the institution of slavery and truly believed that liberty should be meant for all; both themselves and slaves.

The second and third groups collectively were known as the patriots.

It is not without reason, and I hope not to over use that word, that the later two required each other in order to be strong enough to survive words that would be penned by a young Thomas Jefferson, a slaveholder himself who openly struggled with the practice of slavery, and who set the colonies on a path to open revolution. This requirement is why even those that abhorred the institution of slavery stood shoulder to should with those that did not hold their own values sacred and absolute.

The learning of man does not occur often in large leaps. Much like babes must first crawl before they can walk, man too must often take small steps on his journey of learning and the evolution towards good government. Much like babies as well, each child learns to walk at a time different than others around them.

Often times too, learning is not simply obtained by reason and debate. Sadly, this is true. At times blood must also be shed and the price of learning lessons can often be painful. Sometimes those that refuse to learn or who have willfully decided to remain in a state untenable to reasonable men must have their bodies bloodied in order to coerce their hearts and their minds to see the error of their ways.

It took a bloody war for America to take her first steps towards liberty in the year of our Lord 1776. It took a second to secure that tentative footing again in 1812. It took yet a third to move even further to granting unalienable liberties to all in 1852. Then again in 1917 Americans had to stand up with others around the world to beat back a diabolical, imperial machine. In 1945 those that were endeared to liberty had to fight yet again.

This is, of course, not a complete review of the number of bloody battles which Americans have had to partake in to beat back those that would threaten liberty. But they are major points in our learning history to illustrate that sometimes learning must be enforced upon those that deny truth.

A Call for Reason (Part V Conclusion) - A Time For The Rebirth Of Liberty:

Fellow Americans, fellow patriots, fellow men and women of these proud and united States; I submit before you that reason dictates we have strayed from the pursuit and maintenance of good and just government. I submit that we have moved beyond government simply for upholding unalienable rights and defending us from threats to our liberty both foreign and domestic. Upon ourselves we have heaped laws and regulations which so far exceed the limits of our Federal Constitution that it can no longer be ignored that we have, I direly affirm to you, moved to a state of oppression. It may be a state of soft oppression whereas the government has not, as of yet, begun to forcibly silence dissenters to their master plans, sent soldiers into the streets and regularly conducted raids and thuggish assaults upon the persons and homes of those that disagree while hauling such people off into the night. But it is an oppression none-the-less whereby the force of the State is certainly used to quash as much deviation from policy as is practicable for them to achieve without arousing the sentiments of too many of those who would stringently object to such.

This is, of course, but my own humble opinion. You are welcome to take issue with such a conclusion if you like. However the facts, I do believe, are clear.

America has been on the verge of boiling over for many years. In order to keep such from happening those in charge have sprinkled among us, the citizens, just enough appeasements. They have done this like a cook adds salt to raise the boiling point of water and to allow it to become hotter and take longer to reach a boil as they turn up the heat. These appeasements have kept our society only at a simmer. But like adding salt to water to keep it from boiling, adding such appeasements can only stave off the inevitable for so long while heat continues to be applied.

America has become a society which is at this very instance deconstructing the walls which once had been put in place to protect us from the marauding forces promoting their own power and our enslavement to them. It has become a society where the labor of men is taken for the expressed and boldly unhidden benefit of others by sheer force of government will backed by the growing force and momentum of an army of new loyalists that have discounted the lessons of the past, unlearned what had once been painfully learned, discarded the concepts of limited republican government and are instituting a tyranny of mob rule. They do this despite being taught the results of such and being bound by our Constitution against such acts.

We have words on pieces of paper as a record of these teachings. But those words are going largely undefended. We have ideas that those words represent. But those ideas are being vigorously cast aside. We have oaths boldly proclaimed to protect these words and ideas. But those oaths are going unfulfilled by many of those that made them.

Those words and ideas once represented the sum of good governance. Yes, even though many of the men who supported them did not often abide by those words at all times and even openly enslaved their fellow man while such was untenable and beyond reason, the boundaries were in and of themselves sound. Today we are reinstituting slavery as again we choose not to abide by those same words. Though it is not a slavery based upon the color of one’s skin that we see, it is still slavery nonetheless whereby through the threat of force and punishment the labors of certain Americans who have committed no legitimate crime are being confiscated to solely and expressly enrich others.

The labor of these Americans is not, to be sure, being spent on bettering the whole of society and it’s most general of public welfare through the construction of public roads, maintaining the public defense or even defending and protecting the inalienable rights of citizens from usurpations by funding a functional and just judiciary. It is however being spent on providing direct funds to other Americans deemed to be worthy of such generosity and enrichment by those who sit upon self-crafted thrones. The only saving grace for us at this point is that those who are being enslaved and having their wealth confiscated this day still have the ability to flee from this oppression without fear of being forcibly returned.

But flee to where? Is there somewhere else to flee? Alas, no. Everywhere one turns, bad government has sprung forth. To the north, to the south and across the oceans to the west and to the east societies are infested by the wrongness of arbitrary government established to enrich some on the backs of others. Inside all borders the evil of oppression which springs forth from government fiat and when those in power deem who is arbitrarily worthy of benefits reigns. Nowhere is better. We are simply confined to the least of all available evils.

But should we accept that we are simply the best among a sea of such corruption? Should we accept that the labor of the industrious here is being taken at a lesser rate than in other nations to fund those that have made bad decisions, who are deemed in need of help by bureaucrats and who are simply not motivated to accept bettering themselves by pleasing their fellow man as a palatable destiny? I think that reason would frown upon such a bitter acceptance.

Which leads all reasoned men to an answer that may not be palatable for most but that is true none-the-less. That answer is that we must fight upon our own shores; that we must push back this darkness that is consuming us and rekindle the dying fire of liberty to stave off the chill of winter which is quickly engulfing us. We cannot flee for the way to anything better is shut. We have been pushed back to a solitary hill where all around us those that seek to enslave us are beginning to climb the slope and clamoring for the last of our liberties.

They are not asking us to help them willingly. They are coming with pitchforks and torches and assorted other arms and demanding what they believe to be theirs despite not working for and earning it. They hope to overcome us with sheer numbers and angry tongues upon which dance the words of evil, illogic and non-reason. They promote a tyranny of the majority which is no less palatable than the tyranny of a single emperor, king or dictator.

We shout back and plead with our countrymen. The question remaining to answer though is will our own words be fruitful enough and will those assaulting us be reasonable enough to be stopped by such things as words alone. We have been forced into a position with only three options; continue to appeal to the reasonableness of our assailants, revolt and shed blood and possibly our own lives or surrender unto them, the wicked, and live under that which is the most despicable of situations for human existence.

Will reason alone be enough to overcome the assaulting forces that clamor for and covet that which others have? Or will we do as others have foolishly done in the past and submit with acclaim that life even under tyranny is preferable to death? Or will, as has less often happened, those charging the hill be met with more stringent force?

On the second of November in the year of our Lord two-thousand and ten we saw a crack of light in the clouds that have gathered over us. The voters, in anger, cast aside certain of our rulers in droves who have given us so much bad government. But the elections were not all good news. Far too many Americans voted for those that had been proven as part of the problem. Further, where a reasoned society would have turned out these fiends with disapproval at the polls in excess of ninety percent, bare simple majorities in the low to mid fifties were all that was obtained in most districts where victory was achieved. To add even more worry to the situation and dim that crack of light, some of the most vile and inept were returned to power by irrational voters who acted out of illogic.

Reason, I firmly submit to you, states that if words and truth cannot hold back this tide and that this brief glimmer of hope we have seen should fade then the later of those options which I previously discussed will surely come to pass. Some may, certainly, also opt for the middle way and surrender to tyranny believing that such oppression would be sufferable and palatable. But slowly and surely each who would turn to such an option will suffer as such tyranny grows greater by the years and crushes them under its boot. Some may also claim that there is a fourth way; that our current oppressors would surely allow us to leave the union peaceably if only we ask for such. Do not fall for such illogic! The powerful who are driven by greed and lust for control never willingly give up their power and weaken themselves! As such evidence I present to you mere facts. Even an honest discussion of the States and the people of this union exerting their clearly retained right to dissolve ties with a government that has become destructive to the inalienable rights of all is met with such vitriol and ridicule that it appears clear that the commanders of the forces against us will not allow us to leave without a fight or at least a show of force that scares them into allowing us to leave peaceably if God forbid it would come to that.

Ultimately it is up to each of us to reason as to when words have failed, if they will fail us at all, and when to arms we must take in defense of not just our own inalienable rights, but those of all Americans and even all of mankind. A path is before us. But it may not present itself for long. If it closes then the later of all these options will be our only hope for survival.

Do we wish to see our liberty reborn? Or do we wish to remain in subtle servitude to unkind masters which will grow more intolerable with each passing day? For masters, as history has shown, certainly do become more and more unkind as they spend more time in power and consolidate their forces.

My greatest fear is that words are indeed failing us and that reason has been cast aside by too many for us to gain any significant ground. I pray to God that they have not however. But I cannot discount what I see with my own eyes, hear with my own ears and that which reason dictates I must believe in with my mind and accept as a potential reality. I look upon the vile hordes rushing our hill seeking to choke out from us the last of what we have thinking their lives will be better. I see them becoming more troublesome for our liberties even despite the most recent elections. They are not in their death throws. They are simply changing their tactics to coincide with the fact that they no longer maintain a complete stranglehold on our government. We have spent so much breath on speaking yet the foot soldiers of oppression continue to march and bear down upon us as the years tread on.

If this course of action continues soon it will be the time in which Americans must decide their path beyond just words. While that time is not upon us yet, now is the time for Americans to prepare for what will come if words and reason do ultimately fail. It is a time to properly prepare for a future in which we may well be required to meet the coming hordes with more rigorous force although we pray dearly to never have to. It is time for all true Americans to prepare and gather the arms that are our birthright and that will be needed for a potential, but hopefully not necessary, future of confronting those that will not yield to reason unless their own lives are threatened by such a course. If we do not then to say that there is no tomorrow for America would be but the most obvious of clichés that comes to mind. A public secure in their fate and unwilling to even consider fighting for their liberty is the kindest friend to a tyrant.

Perhaps there are more words which we can speak to maintain our remaining liberties and reclaim those unrightfully stripped from us. And I do believe that there are for I believe that the spirit of logic will overcome. But what we must still commit to regardless is a strong and ardent defense of the rights of all freemen and freewomen nonetheless and if we are to have any hope of a secure future in the bosom of liberty. We must commit to such and rise with a mighty roar and reclaim our liberty if the hordes will not cease. We must proudly proclaim that we would prefer to die freemen on this hill and its slopes by the barrel of the tyrant’s guns than live in the service of petty tyrants who falsely call themselves our countrymen. We must make it known to the enemies of liberty that if they persist in their assault our words will indeed end and be replaced by more forceful measures and that they will lie with us upon the blood soaked grasses.

The Latin saying is, "Si vis pacem, para bellum," – if you wish for peace, prepare for war. I wish for peace. We all should do so. For peace is noble. But if we do not prepare for battle there will be no option left to us when peace leaves us, the war is laid at our feet and we are forced to prostrate ourselves before our unkind lord.

There were elections this past November. It was our opening salvo to use our words against our enemies. We won small victories. But we lost many battles. But do not be fooled into thinking that because of small victories at the ballot box this one year that America has been saved. We are so far down the road to tyranny that the path back will be long and the risk of returning to where we are is indeed high.

If words do ultimately fail then we must be willing to act on proclamation, take to arms and decimate all who stand in our way regardless of past friendships, alliances and even ties of blood. And if we come to that I know that with Lady Liberty at our side and with the grace of our Lord in Heaven we will be victorious and we will reclaim our liberty and be reborn as a nation.

Our enemies must understand this. And they must never doubt that our last breath will be spent in a mighty charge against their tyranny if need be even as all breaths before were spent pleading with them for reason. Only when this is clearly understood will the wicked cower from a fight that they cannot win. Only then will all men, black and white, male and female, young and old live in blessed liberty!

Laus Deo!

J.J. Jackson, American Citizen

J. J. Jackson

Send email feedback to J. J. Jackson

Biography - J. J. Jackson

J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at

Read other commentaries by J. J. Jackson.

Copyright © 2011 by J. J. Jackson
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]

© 2004-2023 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved