Winston Churchill once observed, "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival."
Churchill noted that, "There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
We may well be on the precipice of that "worse case."
Have you ever noticed how the ACLU and usual liberal agenda suspects defend the First Amendment with the unbridled fervor of religious zealots? That's a good thing, right? So how and why do they display such hinky diffidence in applying that same enthusiasm for other amendments in the Bill of Rights? Could it be the routine anti-constitionalists' duplicity to negate facts, which contradict their pre-conceived opinions? Could it be myopia? Prejudice? Bigotry? Or are they conditioned to only defend political agendas, notwithstanding the Constitution, Bill of Rights and rule of law?
Frederick Douglass observed, "Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
Although Douglass wasn't talking about incrementalism, he was describing incrementalism. Testing the limits of endurance of injustice is part and parcel of incrementalism. An army uses probing attacks to identify weaknesses, and harass an enemy. When a weakness is identified, it becomes a target of opportunity to be exploited. Tyrants, anti-constitutional sycophants peddling the panacea of socialism use the same tactics. Lower standards, homogenize attitudes, encourage and then mandate tolerance of the intolerable while routinely defending the indefensible. Sound familiar?
Some insightful anonymous student of history once noted that "Patriots are not revolutionaries trying to overthrow government. Patriots are counter-revolutionaries trying to prevent government from overthrowing the U.S. Constitution."
Recently, I made reference to an observation by columnist/commentator Ann Coulter, in which she noted if the Second Amendment were to be defended with the passion they routinely direct at the First Amendment, Americans might well be required to own nuclear weapons. Subsequently, I received an e-mail from a listener/reader with an idea so sick ... it may merit consideration.
I have often noted that on the basis of facts, defenders of the Second Amendment should win any debate. There is a huge body of statistical evidence that proves two points as being axiomatic: 1) In communities in which law abiding citizens are armed (or at least criminals are not sure if they are not armed), crime goes down. 2) In communities in which law abiding citizens are denied the opportunity to exercise their free will to own arms, crime goes up. Both scenarios are well documented with overwhelming statistical analysis.
However, anti-constitutional socialists and propaganda pundits continue to win the hearts and minds of the sheeple by parading any and all statistical aberrations in which the offensive tool was a gun.
Tim from Carson City, Nev., wrote, "Dear Geoff - It occurred to me last night that perhaps if there were an anti-First Amendment organization then perhaps the "mainstream" press might begin to recognize the threat of such organizations to our Constitution." Tim may be considering facts not in evidence, but here's his suggestion: "For example what about something like: Speech Control Incorporated? After all, there are plenty of words or phrases that are not 'needed.' Especially given all of the 'hate crime' legislation, the need to eliminate offensive words is all the more pressing!" Imagine the benefits "for the children" if they were never to be tempted with the potential of using intemperate language. "Of course it stands to reason that the manufacturers of the machinery that can produce such horrible words may well be subject to litigation. As a consequence, computer, typewriter, paper, ink and software companies should all be on notice that they assume liability for the misuse of their products in the creation of 'hate speech' or offensive language." Venues for the distribution of potentially offensive language (print, radio, television, computers, et al) would and could be subject to litigation (the lawyers would LOVE this). "I guess it goes without saying that the protection of the children from such speech would be a significant benefit! What do you think?" Tim even suggests that when 'Up'Chuck Schumer retires he could start up just such an organization, or maybe Sarah Brady might expand her focus -- 'for the good of the children.'"
Speech Control Inc. might be a cute academic exercise, but as absurd a concept is to a "reasonable" person, the dangers of letting THAT genie out of the bottle is just way too dangerous. Remember, the concept of Handgun Control Inc., was an absurd concept to a reasonable person 30-40 years ago. Stuff happens. ... Consider the following: