We Hold These Truths

Still here in WA, but not for much longer. Oh what a change a week makes. In less than a week, we’ve had an offer, at 25K over asking. Now there are some who would say “Obviously you’re not asking enough! Refuse the offer and raise the price.” That’s greed talking folks, and I’m not a greedy man. The home inspector is coming on Friday, and I’m slightly more worried he’ll say, “It’s not worth what the purchaser is offering.” If we can close this deal, we’ll be happy, the buyer will be happy, and everyone walks away smiling. That’s the sign that a deal was well done.

Dinner is Paella. The tip jar is at the link and I thank you sincerely for your support.

I had lodge last night, and it was probably my last hurrah at my ‘home’ lodge. It will always be ‘A’ home, I’m a life member. but it will no longer be ‘THE’ home, as I will need to find a lodge near the new house. (That will be pretty easy actually, I already know where the Rogersville Masonic Hall is, I just need to show up.) As part of the meeting, I had been asked by the W.M. to speak on the subject of patriotism, and our nation, due to the meeting being just before Independence Day. I thought I did a decent job at it, so I feel like including it here:

Brothers, I was offered a chance to speak on the subject of the flag, and our nation, as we celebrate the start of our two hundred and fiftieth year as a nation.

I looked at all the standard poems about the flag, and such, and rejected them all, as things we have heard so often as to have lost their meaning.

Then I thought, well, let’s look at famous Brothers from the Revolution and maybe read one of their speeches… MWB Washington’s speeches however are very long indeed, and are rather rough reading for today’s ear. MWB Franklin was better, but then I had an epiphany. Something not quite as well known, but very pertinent to today’s world.

Neither of these good men were, as far as can be determined, Masons; yet they illustrate the very best of Masonry. There were two members of the Continental congress, who were asked to be part of the committee drafting the Declaration of Independence. At the time, neither had met the other. One was a farmer, Landed Gentry in all but name, a lawyer, and inventor from Virginia, the youngest representative to attend. The other a lawyer, and preacher, who had defended British Soldiers against a charge of murder for the Boston Massacre and was vilified for it. He was as roundly disliked as the other was well received. One was a great writer, but a poor debater. The other was not as good of a writer, but deadly on the debate floor. One was widowed young, and the other and his wife were his consolation that helped hold him together.

They were diametrically opposite in politics. One believed that man needed government, to tame his coarser nature, and that government needed to be checked by itself, that each part should balance the others, ensuring that no one branch became a despot, but that all branches working together would make sure that while citizens were protected from outside tyranny, they were also restrained from their own poor behavior.

The other believed that Government was by nature a despotism, and that that government which governed best, governed least. He saw government as something that should only have very limited powers, limiting government to those things which only government can do, such as make treaties, referee between the states, and so on. That it should be bound around with limits to keep it from growing too powerful and infringing on the rights of those who it is supposed to serve.

Consider the visions of, oh say, President Obama and President Reagan. That is how far apart these two men were. According to the docent giving the tour of the capital building where the painting resides, their political animosity was so significant that one paid the artist to paint the signing of the declaration of Independence with him grinding his heel into the other’s foot. (see circled area of the painting above)

Yet, during this time, they were great friends outside of the congressional hall. Consider this, in an era when the former Secretary of the Treasury, and the former Vice President, held a duel in which the Secretary was killed. An era when at least eleven public duels, and the divine only knows how many fist fights took place between politicians.

They each became ambassadors after the revolution, one to King George, the other to France, then in its own revolution.

Eventually, they ran against each other for the presidency after MWB Washington completed his second term. During and directly after this event, their relationship became strained for a time, and yet, after each had served as President of These United States, they rekindled their friendship, and each one’s last words were of the other. I speak of course, if you have not yet identified them, of Presidents Adams, and Jefferson.

President Adams last words were “Thomas Jefferson survives.” Unknowing that President Jefferson had died five hours before. Jefferson’s final words were “Adams lives on.”

This brothers, is the ideal to which we subscribe. That whatever our differences, we are united in our love of our country, each other, and this, our sacred fraternity.

Folks, if we are to save this nation, if “These Free and Independent States” are to survive for another fifty years, much less two hundred and fifty; if, to quote another famous oration, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” We need to understand a few things.

The first one of these is the concept of citizenship. Even in the Declaration, a differentiation was made between Citizens, and Foreigners. Two of the charges against King George read:

“He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. “

“He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”

In a proto-nation that NEEDED people, trained people, and people with ‘Skin in the game’ he (HRH George III) would only allow in slaves, indentured servants, and those agreeing to be, what we now would call “Resident Aliens” or “H1B workers.” In short, people who were not citizens of his colonies.

A fair and honest reading of this document leads one to conclude that one of the significant bones of contention was the refusal to allow the colonies to create new towns, improve lands, and bring in, not untrained slaves, but Foreigners who could be Naturalized. (Capitalization from original.) That those, now citizens though the Naturalization process, must then, and only then be given Representation in the Legislature.

In short, the idea that only once a person was naturalized, did they become citizens and entitled to vote, predates our very constitution. This is one of the bedrock positions on which our nation was founded. That said, and knowing that there is a Very Vocal Group, who disagrees with this concept; we must, as Jefferson and Adams did, discuss this candidly, and frankly, but without animosity.

There is a suggestion and belief on the right, that the ideas and funding behind this “Very Vocal Group,” is in fact funded by foreign governments, to sew disharmony and weaken us as a nation.

Since this is something that we ourselves have done, from time to time, it’s not inconceivable that someone is doing this to us. And yet, we must always remember that no matter who is funding this effort, the people who are part of this movement, if citizens, are due the rights of citizens under law.

Now if they’re not citizens, they still have some protection under the law, however, how much is an issue for debate. Fifth amendment? Absolutely.

First amendment? Well, let’s see: Parts of it, certainly, but there’s a differentiation in some of the amendments, that is not in others. The difference is “The People” v “Person.”

The First amendment speaks of “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Second speaks of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” The Fourth, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and in the Ninth we have “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Now, compare that to the Fifth, which is the only amendment that uses the verbiage ‘person.’ “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The writers, as is evidenced and supported by the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers, all 500 plus pages of it, paid attention to each and every word and coma, to ensure that what they wrote, is very specifically, what they meant.

So, why the difference? No one thinks that the Second amendment actually gives foreign nationals the right to carry a gun in the US. Likewise, petitioning the Government for redress of grievances, and to peaceably assemble is not actually something that was meant to be a right for foreign nationals… They have their own government to bitch to. So we can draw the conclusion that “The People” means the same thing as “citizens of the United States” and “Person” means any living human. Hence, the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth would seem to apply to anyone that is inside the jurisdiction of the USA, unless they have immunity from prosecution (diplomatic persons, heads of state, and so on.)

All of this is for lawsuits and criminal prosecutions. That’s an important distinction, because deportation, no matter what some district judge says, is not a prosecution. It caries no criminal sentence by itself, and unless the state decides to prosecute the deportee for some crime (like crossing the border illegally.) it’s not supposed to be a criminal proceeding.

It’s more like catching an undersized fish. “Oh, sorry Mr. trout, you’re only ten inches long, I didn’t mean to catch you, back in the water with you. Grow a little, and then I’ll catch you.”

OR

“Oh, sorry Mr. Central American citizen, you don’t belong here, back to whatever place you came from. Fill out the proper paperwork, get approved, then come back.”

(Now, if we want to have a discussion of how fucked up the immigration system is, and how many crooked individuals we have in various Embassies that are taking bribes, and otherwise subverting the system, that is a different discussion, and yes, absolutely, this is something that needs fixed. But you don’t fix it by doing other fucked up shit.)

In short, protesting illegal immigrants do not get the same consideration as citizens. Still, we need to treat all of the protesters the same way, because you can not tell by looking at them if they’re Guatemalan nationals (for instance) or if they were “Born in East L.A.” So arrest them all, using the minimum force necessary to complete the act, remembering that they are presumptively Americans, then, if it turns out that they are NOT Americans, instead of charging them, deport them.

All of the protest arrests have to come from the position of “You violated the concept of ‘peaceably assemble,’ you were read the riot act, and chose to blow it off. We must therefore assume your intent is to be arrested so that you can make a case in court. We will assist you in that. If you choose to resist, they we’re over into an entirely different set of rules” as mentioned in last week’s post.

Above all, we must remember that we are one nation. I’ve seen folks on both sides that have suggested that this is a “Correctable error.” People, please, go look at any of the nations in the past 50 years that have undergone a Civil War. Now multiply that by oh, about an order of magnitude. An American Civil war would be the deadliest, most brutal, bloodiest war in the history of the world. We have hobbyists who make Theater level Ballistic missiles in their back yard for FUN.

Look, all that thing needs is a warhead. Please believe me when I say I know at least three dozen guys that could make the warhead, some of them out of stuff in your kitchen. I know even more guys that could make Oklahoma City look like a firecracker if they wanted to. Our KIDS play with drones pretty much just like the ones Ukraine is giving Russia fits with. None of this counts the number of veterans who are hunters and understand that you don’t need to kill the tank, if you kill the fuel truck and the mechanic.

No country comes out of a civil war with anything like the power, prestige, or lifestyle that they went into it with. For us it would be especially nasty, as we are, without any false modesty, the people that have “Kept the lid on” the worst of various megalomaniacs’ desires to destroy their neighbors. A US Civil war would be not just our problem, North Korea would attack to attempt to reunify the peninsula under communist rule. Just like the scorpion, it’s his nature.

The rest of Asia would be dealing with old grudges, and making some new ones. The PRC would, without a doubt, attack not just Taiwan, but Japan and the PI as a minimum. Australia would almost surely get involved, just to protect their waters.

I suspect that fifteen hours after the US Civil War kicked off, Japan would announce that they are now a nuclear power. Saudi would join the club soon after, and in no particular order, Germany, and the Nordic nations, Brazil, and maybe Egypt. Within the duration of our Civil War, I would bet any sum you want, that someone would throw a nuke… Hel it might be US.

If the wrong person gets in charge of any of the four to fifteen factions that I suspect we would break into and then looked like they were going to ‘lose it all’ well, there are Americans that I would not put beyond launching a nuke in a “Sampson at the Temple” moment. Once someone breaks the seal again, and Nukes are no longer the ultimate taboo, they would fly freely. Yes, I’m talking about a major nuclear exchange here. That is the level of “oh shit” we’re mostly keeping at bay.

Look, I get it, you find the other side’s position to be not just wrong, but EVIL. Guess what, they feel the same way about you. They’re wrong, and you’re not exactly right. Are there some Evil people on each side? Oh yes, there are. Most of them, though just flat out don’t believe that the things you say their side is doing, is true. “It can’t be true, because if it is, I’ve been the biggest chump in history! And I know I am not a chump.”

The trouble is, both sides are forted up, and can’t talk to each other, because they are too busy talking PAST each other. Then when it actually comes out in an undeniable way, that one side or the other was so far over the line, they couldn’t even see the line with the Hubble Telescope, they are so invested in being right, that they deny the evidence. See the QOTD for an example.

Look, maybe the folks crying to “just shoot it out and get it over with” are right. Maybe it IS inevitable. But right up until the first shots are fired, I’m going to try and keep the lid on. I owe it to my kid’s kids. And I owe it to Most Worshipful Brother G. Washington and company.

QOTD: "Stephen Ireland, who targeted me with endless abuse on [X.com] because I oppose the chemical castration of children and the removal of protected spaces for women and girls, has just been sentenced to 30 years in jail for child rape." —author J.K. Rowling

Yours in Service,

William Lehman