Well, I have been posting my blogs on my band RIGHT RONGLY's MySpace page, but decided after posting a few controversial op-ed's that I shouldn't drag my drummer into my ranting and raving. (He didn't complain - we generally agree on stuff - I just thought I should keep my narrow-minded opinions to myself).  So I've decided to use my OWN MySpace page to vent, not OURS.  So I hope you read the blogs on RR's page, because I erased them forever.  At least until I rewrite them here.  I could have copied and pasted them, but I figured I'd "start fresh."

     Moving on...

     I just finished a very interesting book by Thomas E. Woods and Kevin R. C. Gutzman entitled, "Who Killed The Constitution?" and I'd have to recommend it to any American capable of grasping words containing more than three syllables.  It outlines twelve outstanding examples of humongous power grabs by the executive branch of the federal government over the last 100 or so years, in total and complete defiance of all the rules set forth by the Founding Fathers' final draft of the US Constitution.  I won't go into detail (just read the book, it isn't too big) but I will say that it is a telling exposition on the ineffectiveness of the written word in taming the powers that be.  You can write a Constitution that limits the power of your government any way you like, but do NOT leave it to the very same government to interpret its meaning.  That is a bad, bad idea.  I think we've all seen examples of how one's life inevitably improves by leaps and bounds when all one has to do is get together with his co-worker buddies and vote himself a pay raise using the power with which he has been exclusively entrusted, and the money of the people who entrusted him with the power.

     States were initially perceived to be sovereign, independent bodies, to be self-governed as each saw fit, with little federal intervention.  But that is a long-dead idea.  One government cannot possibly decide what's best for a population as large as exists in the USA, though our federal government sees fit to do this.  Rather, the power needs to be in smaller, more concentrated areas, as the Framers of the Constitution originally intended.  For example - I'm for a woman's right to choose to abort her unborn child.  BUT - I do NOT want to see every state forced to allow abortion under federal law.  This defies the Constitution in every way. The feds don't deserve this power of legislation, and doing that job at my expense is intolerable, since the result will affect me in any State in which I may choose to live.  If Utah wants to ban abortion, let them.  And let them deal with the results.  But I deserve the option of moving to another state to live the way I choose, OR the option to try changing State law legally, through protest and election of like-minded representatives.

      So what to do?  Some will argue that since we have a system in which we can vote for people to represent us, we just simply vote, and all is well.  BUT, what if those people break their promises, the way we know that many politicians do?  Shall we just say, "Oh well, we tried"?  Let's think back to a time before we were born (you can do it, come on -- nothing changes THAT much); how did we break free of our bondage under the King of England?  We started a war.  No amount of legal wrangling would help us, because all the laws that were in place had set us up for certain failure, and if not, the king would just say, "No you can't," and that was that.  So we had to act radically.   Under current circumstances, our president is effectively the Elected King of America.  We put a new guy in office every four to eight years, and we have to obey his every word the whole time he's there.  No other choice seems to be offered, no matter what "protections" the Constitution is supposed to provide.   Your state may ban handguns.  But it can't do that Constitutionally.  You have the right to bear arms.  Any God Damned Arms.  Machine guns, bazookas, whatever.  Murder is still (justifiably) illegal in the eyes of the many, so we still have to behave in a respectable manner.  But I should be able to shoot BACK at an offender, and I will fight for my right to do so.  No, I don't own a gun, but I can't let someone tell me not to.  What are they afraid of?  Less power, that's all.  I would never advocate an unprovoked gunshot, but provoked ones DON'T HAVE to be legal when your life and your liberty are at stake.   Sound a bit "redneck"?  Rednecks ain't ALL wrong...  How about the Civil War?  "Confederate" (southern) versus "Union" (northern) soldiers.  Con-Federate = Against Federation.  Union = Pro-Federation, or "joining all under one".  Think about it.  Lincoln was as power-hungry as any other president, and he happened to get his way, setting a very ugly machine into high gear.

If you can value a life spent as a slave to rules and regulations made without your personal consent and enforced with total authority, then shut up and sit down.  But if you'd rather have your freedom, you'd really better be willing to die for it, because you may one day find yourself under federal gunfire and/or facing prison time for attempting to preserve it.  That's a hard one to explain to your friends and family, not to mention the uneducated, mind-washed masses who comprise 97% of the population of the USA.

Life is really, really hard, and really, really painful.  Death is a piece of fuckin' cake.  And it only hurts the first time.