Citizen Awake!

"We dare defend our rights! Live free or die! Wisdom, justice and moderation. Let it be perpetual!"  --United States state's mottoes

Citizen awake; today we learn that we sleep in the dust, that in our slumber there is terror in our land; that our government proposes there be enemy combatants in our house! How can this be? How can we, as citizens of the United States of America, be we patriots descending back to the founding of this nation, native born, or naturalized citizens stand restless as the elect-citizens* of our nation propose to deny the rights and duties of every citizen to some citizens? Where does the "natural law" fall herein?

At issue is the surviving accused Boston Marathon bomber, who lies critically wounded in a Boston hospital. He, a naturalized US citizen, innocent until proven guilty under law, afforded all the rights and benefits of his citizenship now be proposed that he be an "enemy combatant"?
How can this be?
Are we afraid, those of us either native-born citizens or naturalized citizens?
I am very worried, terrified even, that at the highest levels of government, citizens-elect*, think it wise to propose such effrontery against one, against all.

As has been stated here several times, the Simple Mind knows full well that religion is integral to everyday life; it is instilled in politics and government fully. Those of us living under democracy, monarchy, a designated government or state religion may easily attest to this. From this flows much else. Here in the United States, our ancestors, my ancestors, fought against tyranny, against rule from a distant shore; they preferred self-rule over monarchy. They dared to defend their rights, to live free or die. Free thinking, republican, libertarianism was the call of their generation.They called for moderation against others who would dictate without justice, without prudence.

Have we now lived so long without rulers absolute that we no longer recognize them within our own citizenry? It is and always will be for the citizens of this nation to arise and check the despotic impulses of others. For if we do not, if we neglect the meaning of the natural law upon which this nation founds itself, we may then be lost.
A citizen must not be reduced in status to an enemy combatant, no more than a man should be a slave.
 If this be the case, then no native born citizen and especially no naturalized citizen is protected from the whims and capriciousness of a government responding to illegal or repugnant acts committed within its borders by its citizenry.

Let me explain so that you may determine upon your own conscience the course of action to be taken:

In the words of one Revolutionary War veteran, Levi Preston, regarding the words of men like, Harrington, Hobbes or John Locke on the principles of eternal liberty, or freedoms accorded by the natural law: Preston is said to have remarked, "I never heard of them. We read only the Bible, the Catechism, the Almanac and Watt's Psalms, and Hymns... [We fought because] we had always governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They [the British] didn't mean that we should."

This independent thought is our tradition. Our bill of rights and our constitution stand on this position of historical, natural rights and free thinking. The 14th amendment of the US Constitution is this: 
 "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  --section 1, XIVth amendment to the US Constitution

This Amendment is most often said to protect a person's right against government violations; our founding Fathers sought to return to a state of Common-law, laws of nature from which they believed each was "endowed with by the Creator." As John Locke wrote of the natural, common law, "God has furnished men with Faculties sufficient to direct them in the Way they should take, if they will but seriously employ them."
US Supreme Court Justice James Wilson wrote, "American common law is closer to the common law of the Anglo-Saxons... The Anglo-Saxon, like the American, held a more expansive notion of individual liberty...our common law is not a list of laws, but a way of thinking, a sensibility focused on freedom of association."

And when our government goes back on those common laws, reneges, thus claims civil laws, like imperialism, by itself, we can do nothing less than react to preserve our citizenship, our natural dignity as human beings.
For not every power government engages are just powers, powers for the common good. 
Have courage, speak against the un-legislated assumption of power by the federal government; act as if you, yourself count among the Founding Fathers of this nation.

Some call civil-law, the "ever emerging child of fantasy rebelling against facts or lessons from the past; it will not secure the future."
However, your actions may secure the common good, the rightful status of a citizen. Our Declaration of Independence empowers us:  "under absolute despotism, it is their right [the right of a citizen], their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards [guardians] for their future security." Act now; tell your elected officials this attack on citizenship cannot be permitted.


*those persons, citizens elected by ballot.

Two + Two Equals Five

"Death is a dogma. It can't be debated or explored rationally. Those who do, don't seem to return to quantify it."  --Simply thinking

Relatively speaking, in the realm of mathematics, preciseness can be relied upon, science too. There is the "scientific" method; we all have been more or less indoctrinated with it from our school years. That in the world which is measurable, quantifiable can be sure; it can be said to be true. So there are absolutes in life.

By mathematical, demonstrable methods, because we can see actual objects, count them, the sum of two and two is known. It can be argued for a "truth." The rising and the setting of the sun, the seasons of the earth, they too can be argued for as "truth." Many readers will quickly, instinctively argue that two and two is four! Why? Because it's true!

What is truth? Is it my way or your way? Is truth what a powerful person says it is, or do I decide, choose my truths?
The Webster dictionary defines truth simply as: the state of being, the body of real things, events and facts. Its more archaic definition interestingly is: fidelity or constancy.

G.K. Chesterton who wrote on many philosophical subjects early in the last century reprises again in The Complete Thinker, the words and ideas of Chesterton edited by Dale Ahlquist. Alquist quotes Chesterton, “Thinking means connecting things.” He writes of Chesterton that 'he wants to know and to connect everything.'
 Instead today we, "want religion kept out of politics. We want it kept out of economics. Well, we want religion kept out of everything! But we have also separated meaning from art, and art from beauty. We have separated health from human dignity, and have separated the family from the home. We have separated the big questions from the little questions and neither is getting answered very well." Chesterton argues that it is today, 'the current failing of man to engage in thinking clearly.'

Things then aren't going very well for the "oneness" under this scenario, now are they? There is, instead, more and growing dichotomies, dualities and increasing egos to match. "You have yours and I have mine," is a prevalent mindset. When much of life is "relative," we, each of us, may fall into the notion that we are the dictators of ourselves, the centers of our own universes. Our feelings, transient as they may be, become the arbiters of existence in the worldly realm. If it feels good, makes us happy, well then--do it!

Without "natural law", the slippery slope that is life becomes entirely negotiable; there is no good or bad. So why isn't the sum of two and two five? How can anyone say that's wrong??

 "Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me" – the habit of saying this is mere ego. A universal philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a universal philosophy is constructed to fit a universe. Each person can no more possess a private belief than one can possess the sun and moon privately." --Chesterton

*In other words,
John's truth is relative, while Bob's truth is absolute; therefore John accepts Bob's truth. Bob does not accept John's truth.
OR: It's true for everyone that nothing is true for everyone.
In logical/mathematical terms:
If A, then B.
If B, then not/negative A.
Therefore, if A, then not -A.
This form of argument is called a hypothetical syllogism, a statement of deductive logic which here proves false, because one cancels the other out, though many believe it in its simpler, verbal forms. To put it in mathematical symbols:
 x=y, y=z, therefore x=z.

Think about that.

*To review the truth or falseness of this type of statement, see the classic text on the subject, Copi's Logic.