GROUND ZER0, New York, N.Y.--June 28, 2003-- The real issues of Freedom boil down to the issue of "central control" over people's lives or "individual" management of them.
     No Terrorism is greater than that of Complacency, when one turns over the rule and order of his or her life to the care and feeding of a third party, especially to a government body.

    Rugged Individualism, the foundation of American liberty, is summed up in Supreme Court Clarence Thomas' quote from Fredrick Douglass in his flaming dissent against the recent affirmative action vote regarding giving black students, Native Americans and Hispanics applying for law school added competitive weight because of their position as minorities.
     In his opening volley against legislating diversity, Justice Thomas reached back 14 decades to a speech by Douglass.   Not only does the following quote apply to the issue of diversity among the citizens of America, but it also has a knock-out-punch meaning to the constant meddling of the U.S. government in the daily lives of American citizens.    Here is the quote:

      The Supreme Court is, in a subtle way, becoming the Great Terrorist to civil liberties.   Each decision it makes that empowers the government over the people strips the people of one more rock away from the foundations of their "rugged individualism" castles.

       The foundation of any Liberty is usually not bulldozed down.   Its weakening comes about by people letting visitors to it take a pebble here, a stone there, ignoring the fact that eventually, chunk by chunk, the visitors are like termites--one may not be a worry, but when one's brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, aunts and children's children beat their way over the same path, the undermining becomes disastrous.
       Beasts of Terror are not always giant, ugly birds in the sky that crash into World Trade Center towers and kill thousands of people in the name of Allah.

       Often, Beasts of Terror take diaphanous forms, similar to the fable of the wolf in the sheep's clothing.   These "Beasts" wear smiles and slap your back and tell you they are on your side.  But, they carry a small knife in their palm, and each time they slap your back, they slit you and you bleed a little.  Not much.  Just a little.
       You don't notice the blood until its too late, and your back is totally lacerated and you wake up and say:  "What happened!  What the Hell happened?"
       Insidious Beasts are those that offer you protection from yourself.
       Take prejudice.
       Making prejudice and bigotry a "national crime" suggests that the United States government can control prejudice and bigotry.    In essence, if one reads Frederick Douglass' comments closely, Douglass is simply saying that the black man and woman must become "rugged individualists" in a land composed of "rugged individualists."    To be granted special entitlements for one's disadvantages only fuels the fires of entitlement.   It tells the children of those entitled that entitlements are legacies, inheritances that must be used to gain parity with others.
       In other words, to build one's character and acceptance to any group or society based on forces other than one's own bearing, one's own character, is a falsification of all principles of "individualism.

      While hailed by many, upholding affirmative action in the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in favor of the University of Michigan's Law School admission policies, snares a big rock from the castle of "rugged individualism."  It not only weakens the knees of minorities struggling to build their own castles, but the blow threatens the fabric of American democracy.  It is one more way in which the government tells its citizenry how to run their lives.
        It is one more act of tyranny and oppression not just against current "rugged individualism" rights, but impinges upon those of future generations, the Children's Children's Children.  For a society to be "color blind," it must begin with the vision of a child who sees no difference between himself and the other children.  It can't be legislated downward to be "real."  Otherwise, it is a mere smoke screen, a "feel-good-about-what-I-just-did-to-create-Justice-for-all" act that has no firmament.
      But that's not all.

      The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and trade commission got together and launched a new attack on "rugged individualism."   The government has offered citizens a shelter to hide from "junk calls," those noxious calls by telemarketers offering a variety of offerings over the phone.  By registering at www.donotcall.org, the government offers "big brother" protection against receiving unsolicited calls.   Violators face a fine of up to $11,000 for each call made to those who have dashed under the skirts of the federal government.

        On the surface, this may appear as a benefit.   But, is it the wolf in sheep's clothing stalking us one more time?
        Unfortunately, the President of the United States touted the new program on television as another example of government helping people out.   It's not that we as a nation have our hands full with vital issues of world peace or an economy on shaky grounds, or a threat to all our civil liberties through the Patriot Act's chipping at the granite stone of the Bill of Rights.    But the sheer fact the most important leader on the globe would issue from his lips the benefits of protecting people from "junk phone calls" suggests that our ability to stand on our own two feet has weakened so much that we must run to the government and ask them to answer our phone for us.    Their answer is a Billy Club.   Yes, they will protect our weak selves from the Bullies of Telemarketing.  Yes, they will be our Mother and Father of Vigilance guarding us from the Beast of Telemarketing Terrorism.  And yes, we can all go to sleep at night more comfortably knowing our "Homeland Telemarketing Security System" is at work.

        One might ask, "How will the decision by the U.S. government to halt junk mail or junk calls enrich the lives of our Children's Children's Children?"   Will the fact we can't say "no" to someone on the phone be considered a strength or weakness.  Will the fact that state law, not federal law, rule the issue be more in tune with "rugged individualism" than "federal" management over all our rights?
         Has anyone ever benefited from a telemarketing call?
         Are all telemarketing calls "evil?"
         Of course, if one really wanted to get off the list, one could not make one's phone number public and removed it from the phone directory.  But that would be too much an act of "rugged individualism" rather than the frightening trend toward more "governmental control" and "management" over our daily lives, which now includes the ringing of our phones.
         Americans have grown Complacent about how to run their lives.   Take this next issue.
         It's the "No Spanking Law."
         If you're scratching your head, hang on.  It's on its way.   The No Spanking law is in effect in a nine countries already, and is heading toward America, just as the federal law to allow gay marriages is hovering up in Canada and enthusiastic supporters are shouting for its acceptance.

        No one will argue that corporal punishment at the extreme against a child is harmful, and the line between discipline and abuse can be fuzzy.  But when one begins to legislate laws telling a parent how he or she may raise a child, and what he or she can or cannot do to that child within the context of socially, and morally accepted guidelines, now becomes another example of stripping one's rights away.
         In America, for over 200 years, our nation grew without the citizens rushing to the government to seek permission to parent their children.   Local, community and state laws were in effect that somehow allowed America to become the wealthiest, healthiest, most powerful nation in the world--envied by all because of its citizens "rugged individualism."

       Suddenly, all that legacy is flying out the window.   Suddenly, we are now being challenged as a society that our ability to raise our children comes from some Terroristic Roots.   A No Spanking Law is a law against Child Terrorism.  It presumes, at a national level, we cannot trust our communities, or our states to reflect the choice of the citizens to manage their lives.  It means we have done something horribly wrong in the past, or, that we are so spineless we fear we will do something so horrible in the future that we need the government to tell us how to raise our children.
         This is true Terrorism.
         It means all who allow such a law to come into being by default accepts the character flaw of parenting.  It means we who allow it have committed an act of Complacency.   We have given over the parental keystone to our rugged individualism castle to government.  We deserve to have our castles fall.

        Oh, don't let me forget the Fat Tax.  The government is seriously pondering imposing taxes on junk food, and warning signs at fast food establishments such as McDonald's that serve to remind mothers and fathers they are feeding their children "Terror Food."
        Once again, the government is telling the citizens the opposite of what Frederick Douglass sought for his black brethren--"let me stand on my own two feet."
         Terrorism is about making the slope of individuality slippery.   It's about enacting laws in the name of good that ultimately do bad.

         What worse Terrorism is there for our children and their Children's Children's Children than to allow their "rugged individualism" rights to be ripped from their innocent hands without a fight, without the blink of an eye.
         This week tens of thousands, perhaps millions, leapt with joy over the affirmative action ruling, and the gay rights ruling by the Supreme Court.  Others rushed to their computers to log on to www.donotcall.org, cheering on government.  Still others lobbied hard for the No Spanking law and Fat Tax, expecting the public to shout:  "Thank you, Lord.   Yes, Free!  Free at last!  Thanks to government!  Thanks to someone's efforts other than myself!   Thank you, Lord.   Freedom!"
         Sad, isn't it?
         We glorify decisions at the moment and rue them in the future.
         Today, we might think little things like Fat Taxes, No Spanking Laws, No Junk Calls Shelters, Affirmative Action, Gay Marriages, all work to the benefit of our nation and its future because they appear on the surface to be "gifts" righting past injustices or present threats.
         But, when we realize that any federal law enacted is another reduction in our rights, not an addition to them, we stop and are forced to think.
         A federal law is the sum of the averages.   It does not serve all, it is the average of all.    It appeases no one in particular but tries to be all things to all people, and in that process is weak in structure.   When one tries to be everything he or she become nothing.

           Look at government's management of health care.
          To expect our rights to not be watered down by each decision is pure folly.  But instead of opposing federal laws, we rush to support them because they appear to be in our favor.    We don't look behind the law, past the sheep's clothing, into the eyes of the Beast of Terror who wears the offering.
         If we did, we would see a Beast eating up our individual rights.  We would see our children being born with less and spine, and fewer tools to stand on their feet.  We would see our children being crippled at birth by our Complacency, by our selfishness to believe something that appears good is good.
         Candy looks good, but eating it has a price.
         A telephone is a handy instrument unless it rings with a Telemarketer.
         Rather than tell the neighbor not to spank his child, I'm going to call the police.
         Be nice to the black man, it's a law.
         Legislation is scary.

         It isn't something to leap up and down about.
         How do we preserve "rugged individualism"?
         We ask one big question:  "Will this law or act subtract from or add to the individual rights of the Children's Children's Children?"
          If one can't ask that question, one is already a slave of the Beast of the Terror.
         To un-slave yourself, take the Pledge of Vigilance.
         It's the freedom Frederick Douglass talked about.

June 27--Liberia West Africa--An "American Colony" In The Grips of Terrorism

©2001 - 2004, VigilanceVoice.com, All rights reserved -  a ((HYYPE)) design

The Pledge Of Vigilance