by Michael Gaddy, ©2015

(Oct. 20, 2015) — Imagine, if you will:  you are in a public place, perhaps the grocery or drugstore, or perhaps even just walking down the street or around the mall. A person you have never met walks up to you and unsolicited begins to cite to you their opinions on current affairs or political positions. You respond politely and then challenge that person to qualify or quantify their, again, unsolicited position. What would you think if that person then became angry, stated they were offended you had the audacity to question their beliefs and then called you vile names?

It seems lately that I have been more and more experiencing this very thing, although it has occurred in the electronic media. It is not uncommon at all for there to be multiple unsolicited emails in my inbox on a daily basis in which the unknown-to-me sender goes into great detail to state their position on everything from national security issues to their personal beliefs on a plethora of other subjects. I have also learned these people take it very personally if you challenge their stated opinions.

A recurring theme lately has been the sender’s stated opinion on constitutional matters, the favorite being their willingness to adhere to their oath to the Constitution, even to the death if necessary. This theme has been seen in my inbox enough lately to qualify as a platitude for sure.

A few days back, I replied to one of these unsolicited platitudes with the following question: Is the Constitution you are willing to die for the one the US Supreme Court recently stated allows for gay marriage? Could it be the same Constitution that same Supreme Court says authorizes Obamacare and abortion? Just exactly to which Constitution are you referring? Are you stating an oath of allegiance to a Constitution or a government? Oh, the anger! I was asked who appointed me “the grand inquisitor” and how dare I question this person’s “patriotism.”

Perhaps someone could help me out with my dilemma here. What is the correct protocol when one receives an unsolicited email from someone they have never met or previously communicated with, an email that is laced with such exaltations? Should one just hit the delete button and allow this person and their views to remain unchallenged?

This brings to mind a question perhaps others could also help me with. Irwin Schiff (RIP), a tax protester for many decades, passed away last Friday in federal custody. Schiff was 87 years old, handcuffed to his bed, legally blind and dying from terminal cancer. The government refused multiple requests to grant him compassionate leave so he would be allowed to spend his last days with his family in peace.

In 1992, Schiff published a book titled, The Federal Mafia; How government illegally imposes and Unlawfully collects income taxes. This would become the only non-fiction book to be banned in America.

Many of Schiff’s arguments and positions were based on the clearly, well-documented, non-ratified 16th Amendment to our Constitution. To those who pledge their lives to the defense of the Constitution, is that pledge to the perverted use of the Constitution that banned (1st Amendment) Irwin Schiff’s book and sentenced him to death, or the spirit of the Constitution Schiff supported?

Edward Snowden is in exile and currently protected by Russia from prosecution for revealing the multitudinous, illegal incursions on the 4th Amendment by the National Security Agency and others in our government. For exposing those breeches of constitutional guarantees, Snowden could be sentenced to life in prison. Does the person who claims they would die for our Constitution support the government which would imprison Snowden or the courageous acts of Snowden himself?

Tom Drake, former NSA executive, attempted to bring the agency’s many abuses of constitutional rights perpetrated on the citizens of this country to light using the chain of command in that agency. Drake was charged with 10 felonies for his actions, and although the charges were eventually dropped, Drake was destroyed financially and professionally. Do those who claim fealty to our Constitution support to the death Tom Drake, a man who defended the Constitution, or the government which destroyed his life?

Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison for revealing communications traffic which exposed a number of war crimes committed by our government in Iraq, all of which were in violation of the Geneva Accords. Does the person who claims perpetual devotion to our Constitution support Manning or the “conservative Republicans,” several of whom are candidates for president in 2016 who claimed the 35-year sentence was “too light”?

I could offer many more examples of the above, but time and space are limiting.

I think it would clear up a lot of confusion if those who claim they would die for the Constitution make clear exactly which Constitution it is they support and be willing to defend their position, especially when they send out notices of their emotional support unsolicited.

In Rightful Liberty