When The Government Targets Constitutionalists

A friend sent me a link to an article on MediaTrackers.org, "Ohio National Guard Training Envisions Right-Wing Terrorism."

I have to say that I was outraged but not really surprised. That a state's National Guard training exercise would employ a scenario in which the "bad guys" were supporters of the Second Amendment and "limited government" is just a reflection of the regime's ongoing campaign to ridicule and demonize those who cherish the Constitution (not to mention the regime's defiance of the Constitution itself).

It reminded me of a Missouri Highway Patrol memo made public a couple of years ago in which troopers were cautioned that anyone displaying a Gadsden ("Don't Tread on Me") flag might be a potential right-wing terrorist.

And it was particularly not surprising in the context that it was the Ohio National Guard. Even though the personnel are all different now, for those of us with long enough memories the Ohio National Guard will always be known for a willingness to turn its armed might against fellow Americans of any political persuasion (e.g. Kent State, 1970).

But it certainly fit the Leftist meme that "right-wingers" in general, and the Tea Parties in particular, are racists and potential domestic terrorists.

In the disaster-preparedness scenario, two Portsmouth Junior High School employees poisoned school lunches with mustard gas, acting on orders from white-nationalist leader William Pierce. [...]

Participants in the disaster drill located documents expressing the school employees' "anti-government" sentiments, as well as a note identifying Pierce as the fictional right-wing terrorists' leader.

The article quoted Buckeye Firearms Association spokesman Chad Baus: "It is a scary day indeed when law enforcement are being trained that Second Amendment advocates are the enemy."

But then the article quoted Portage County TEA Party Executive Director Tom Zawistowski, and I found his remarks almost as disturbing as the article's premise. Zawistowski said:

"The revelation of this information is appalling to me, and to all citizens of Ohio who are true conservatives and patriots, who don't have guns for any other reason than that the Second Amendment gives them that right."

What was it about this statement that I found so disturbing? It was one word that I zeroed in on, a word that indicates that even a TEA Party executive doesn't get it when it comes to understanding the concept of whence emanate our Constitutional rights.

Here's a little news flash for anyone else who doesn't get it: The Second Amendment doesn't give us the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, none of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are granted by that or any other document.

Our Founders clearly believed that our rights were not granted by some beneficent government, but that they were God-given rights of all free men. They made that clear by the words "...Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Rather than granting such rights, our founding documents pledge to protect those rights. To fail to understand this distinction is to fail to understand the very premise of the United States of America itself and the uniqueness of the freedoms its citizens enjoy.

Why am I making such a fuss over one little word? Because it's important, and it goes to an even bigger issue.

It's no wonder that the Leftists who seek to "fundamentally transform" this country make it part of their agenda to attack our Judeo-Christian values, our Founders' reverence, and even the very notion of God. Without God, there is no power higher than government itself. If there is nothing more powerful than government, then whatever rights we have do emanate from government. And it follows that, if government can grant us such rights, it can just as easily take them away.

It's one thing to cherish our Constitutional rights, which many Americans, particularly those who comprise the TEA Parties, still do. But it's quite another to fully understand and appreciate the provenance of those rights, which evidently many Americans, even some in the TEA Parties, do not.

When even a TEA Party "leader" doesn't get that basic premise, I'm afraid that, as George H. W. Bush might say, we're in even deeper doo-doo than I thought!

Stu Tarlowe has penned over 65 pieces for AT. His pantheon of heroes and role models includes Barry Farber, Jean Shepherd, Long John Nebel, Aristide Bruant, Col. Jeff Cooper, Rabbi Meir Kahane, and G. Gordon Liddy.

A friend sent me a link to an article on MediaTrackers.org, "Ohio National Guard Training Envisions Right-Wing Terrorism."

I have to say that I was outraged but not really surprised. That a state's National Guard training exercise would employ a scenario in which the "bad guys" were supporters of the Second Amendment and "limited government" is just a reflection of the regime's ongoing campaign to ridicule and demonize those who cherish the Constitution (not to mention the regime's defiance of the Constitution itself).

It reminded me of a Missouri Highway Patrol memo made public a couple of years ago in which troopers were cautioned that anyone displaying a Gadsden ("Don't Tread on Me") flag might be a potential right-wing terrorist.

And it was particularly not surprising in the context that it was the Ohio National Guard. Even though the personnel are all different now, for those of us with long enough memories the Ohio National Guard will always be known for a willingness to turn its armed might against fellow Americans of any political persuasion (e.g. Kent State, 1970).

But it certainly fit the Leftist meme that "right-wingers" in general, and the Tea Parties in particular, are racists and potential domestic terrorists.

In the disaster-preparedness scenario, two Portsmouth Junior High School employees poisoned school lunches with mustard gas, acting on orders from white-nationalist leader William Pierce. [...]

Participants in the disaster drill located documents expressing the school employees' "anti-government" sentiments, as well as a note identifying Pierce as the fictional right-wing terrorists' leader.

The article quoted Buckeye Firearms Association spokesman Chad Baus: "It is a scary day indeed when law enforcement are being trained that Second Amendment advocates are the enemy."

But then the article quoted Portage County TEA Party Executive Director Tom Zawistowski, and I found his remarks almost as disturbing as the article's premise. Zawistowski said:

"The revelation of this information is appalling to me, and to all citizens of Ohio who are true conservatives and patriots, who don't have guns for any other reason than that the Second Amendment gives them that right."

What was it about this statement that I found so disturbing? It was one word that I zeroed in on, a word that indicates that even a TEA Party executive doesn't get it when it comes to understanding the concept of whence emanate our Constitutional rights.

Here's a little news flash for anyone else who doesn't get it: The Second Amendment doesn't give us the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, none of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are granted by that or any other document.

Our Founders clearly believed that our rights were not granted by some beneficent government, but that they were God-given rights of all free men. They made that clear by the words "...Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Rather than granting such rights, our founding documents pledge to protect those rights. To fail to understand this distinction is to fail to understand the very premise of the United States of America itself and the uniqueness of the freedoms its citizens enjoy.

Why am I making such a fuss over one little word? Because it's important, and it goes to an even bigger issue.

It's no wonder that the Leftists who seek to "fundamentally transform" this country make it part of their agenda to attack our Judeo-Christian values, our Founders' reverence, and even the very notion of God. Without God, there is no power higher than government itself. If there is nothing more powerful than government, then whatever rights we have do emanate from government. And it follows that, if government can grant us such rights, it can just as easily take them away.

It's one thing to cherish our Constitutional rights, which many Americans, particularly those who comprise the TEA Parties, still do. But it's quite another to fully understand and appreciate the provenance of those rights, which evidently many Americans, even some in the TEA Parties, do not.

When even a TEA Party "leader" doesn't get that basic premise, I'm afraid that, as George H. W. Bush might say, we're in even deeper doo-doo than I thought!

Stu Tarlowe has penned over 65 pieces for AT. His pantheon of heroes and role models includes Barry Farber, Jean Shepherd, Long John Nebel, Aristide Bruant, Col. Jeff Cooper, Rabbi Meir Kahane, and G. Gordon Liddy.