Denying the Game

WHO ARE THE RISK-TAKERS?

by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired, ©2012, blogging at Gulf1

(Sep. 20, 2012) — I wrote “Game Theory” a few weeks ago, intending to follow it up with further considerations, but the events of the past two weeks precluded that.  At the same time, they have highlighted the importance of taking this issue seriously, and dealing with it.

All those who chose to settle this land had to decide whether the chance of a better life was worth the risk of losing it completely.  Those who left home and became colonists were those who chose risk over security, the possibility of better, over the surety of things as they were.  They were pilgrims, pioneers, explorers, adventurers, all sorts of names applied to those who chose risk over security.  The average person stayed at home, it was the risk takers who went to the new land.

Those who came here had to survive a wilderness, the animals, the exotic plants, the tribes of people, some, as described in Columbus’ first visit as “Noble Savages” living in his vision, according to God in their own way, but also living with those majority of native Americans the tribes which were warriors, routinely waged war, were cannibalistic, and provided a completely different perspective which had to be included.

Few who came here did so not knowing the trials and difficulties which they would face, most having seriously considered their journey beforehand.

It was from among this class of people, the more than average adventurous, the risk takers, those willing to bear arms, and secure families, towns and a culture who dominated the land.  It was these same and their descendants who refused to live without the rule of law which was the standard for England, and her colonies.  It was the most ardent who chose to rebel and the least ardent who chose to suffer the ignominious violations perpetrated upon themselves, having assumed a similar disposition to those who did not come.

When our Nation was established, the foundation was not considered “provisional”, but absolute.  The principles for it were the self evident truths to be seen by all, and the natural laws which are found by applying such truths to nature and the world.  The Laws of God, the Decalogue, were sacred, fixed and unchanging.  Such laws as were expected to be in the venue of Man would be those similar to the enacted laws of Israel, the tidbits which applied to the small things, and were mere application of law, to debatable issues.

At no time was there total agreement on all considerations, and from the first, choices were made which some disagreed with.  The basis for our constitution was an old principle, but one so long out of use it appeared as if new.  Every nation had used the principle of majority rule to some degree in some way for some or all decisions, however our founders considered that one of the worst totalitarian forms, as in the majority, there is no single entity to which propriety can be addressed.

The extraordinary outcome of that constitutional convention was a Nation of Sovereign Citizens, whose loaned consent was to be the sole authority of government, and only that law which was acceptable to all truth bound, honorable Believers in the founding statements, found acceptable.

By this unusual perspective, the constitution was primarily for the purpose of limiting government to an exact form and power, and all which was no proscribed, was the right and the freedom all Men were endowed by their Creator to exploit and enjoy.  Obviously, those who were themselves established at the time of this establishment of a new form of government were graced with more than others, however the exact form ensured the ability of all to rise from their present positions, and leave a better position for their descendents.

The fact this occurred with slavery long established meant little to those who saw no wrong in history of slavery, and only the establishment of Western Judeo-Christian progressive thought provided a reasoned, rational standard against the idea of slavery, so it should be no surprise slavery carried over, despite the best efforts of some, very strongly opposed, and well supported.

This was certainly good cause for agitation against the standing law allowing slavery, and for agitation for other liberties not considered previously, in a world devoid of Free and Independent Citizens.

Out of this movement, necessary to bring about the egalitarian society in time, those who bound themselves to socialist ideals concluded the founding of the nation, and its rule of law were fundamentally flawed, and for this reason, ceased to pursue change within the boundaries of law and constitution, and began to agitate for change with complete dismissal of our founding standards.

As we enter this election, the left has no standard by which to call anything “wrong” or “immoral”, so any means of winning is acceptable, as it is the equality of outcome by which they measure, not equality of inception.

Those who stand firm on first principles, on the correctness of our form, and the wrongs being the application of law and principle improperly, we have rules, standards, principles which must not be breached, and by this, we begin our contest at the disadvantage.

To balance this, we must stand on our first principles, espouse them clearly, and we must contrast our principles and actions made on them, with the unprincipled actions of the left.  They truly operate absent moral and ethical rules, and by this, they may well win hearts and minds which cleave to those offering the most, bribery.  We cannot resort to their standards, as the Republican Party has, but must still win, meaning we must convey the true value of principles, and overcome that “47%” who truly will vote for the largest handout.

If we consider just this election, we can win it, but to no real value.  If we care about our Nation, we must move after the election, and make clear, the rule of law is right, a limiting document is what every government needs, and we have to do this by demonstrating our elections are not games, the winners of which go home at night, but they truly are the sole opportunity we have to be actually represented in our demands and needs, and we must become the Sovereign Citizens necessary if we have any intent of putting our Nation back on course, and righteous as a People, fulfilling the principles, not ever moving the goalposts further away.