Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.

-Thomas Jefferson

Here are links to the publicly-viewable Facebook photo albums from the event today (er, yesterday?):

Nashville Tea Party, Part I

Nashville Tea Party, Part II

A response to a full thread of thoughtless comments about the Tea Party here. I’m too tired to write another post, so here’s my best for the night along with some great photos of the event.

Alright angry people, let’s calm down a bit. Get it out of your heads that any of us showed up today because Republicans got it right and we’re just mad at the Democrats. Not in the least. Just because the GOP showed up and gave their support does not mean they were running the affair. The GOP speakers at the rally were mostly challengers, not currently in office, so they’re campaigning to replace those who caused this mess. Including Republicans. They’re opportunists just like any political party. That’s politics. Though it’s easy and you might think you’re being cute by making the typical racial, classist, party-line remarks, it’s just ridiculous. Get past the Dem vs. Repub mindset.

Those of us who organized it are not professional protesters. We’re not partisans. We’re not even all in agreement on everything, and I’m sure we’d form a rather lackluster political party if we tried. But that’s not what this is about. It’s about being fed up with big, wasteful government, something to which George W. Bush was an extraordinary contributor. But guess what? He’s out of office now. That’s in the past. Petitioning him and blaming him does no good. The only problem causers we need to be concerning ourselves with at the moment are the elected officials currently in office. Blaming GW might make you feel awesome and superior, but it’s fruitless. Get past it. Barack Obama is President, and we will not give him a pass just because Bush did the same awful things.

The libertarians and conservatives among us who are truly limited-government and free market folks are more than happy that the Republicans took a lashing during the election. It’s forcing them to come to terms with their “say one thing and do another” philosophy. At least with Obama, we saw it coming. He’s delivering on his promises, but weak-minded, ill-advised ideas delivered remain weak-minded and ill-advised.

On a side note: I am still quite startled every time some angry leftist throws out a racial comment in a situation where there was no need. It seems to me that those on the right who do this are the marginalized, the few number of actual rubes who the left pretends formulate the entirety of the conservative movement. But it seems to be a very kitch, pseudo-enlightened thing on the left to say things like, “Nice to see the diversity in that crowd . . . What? Uh, oh, I must’ve looked at the wrong flicker set.” Oh, I’m sure you thought that was a cute comment. But really, be an adult.

Take a look at the pictures. Sure, you’ll no doubt zero in on the one nutjob with a crazy sign, a guy who is probably rambling on about conspiracy theories. But let him go, there’s one in every crowd. Look at the majority of the people. Quite normal, non? In Nashville, we had a whole swath of folks arriving on their lunch break, walking over from their workplaces downtown. So yes, BrassAss, they should be working, and thank the Lord they are. They gave up their precious lunch break to show their frustration alongside a host of people who feel helpless, like a thief is being allowed to ransack each of our houses right in front of us and all the while we are told by the authorities, on their way out with another helpful box load, that we should stop being so greedy.

We were frustrated with Bush, and that’s why you saw such a defection of true conservatives from the GOP. And our frustration is mounting with those currently in power. Gov’t is CLEARLY the problem, not the solution. Bush proved it, and Obama is merely the same song in a different key. If you’re honest with yourself, you can see it. We’re only going to get louder from here, friends. Put the petty bickering about parties aside; study up on sound economics, the fight for liberty, and the histories of the all-providing government; take a look at the facts, and join us.

Keep your eyes on this blog for more photos coming soon. My flickr account is maxed so I need to find some way to get these online. For these and the upcoming photos… update: photos are here.

The photos (only) in this post are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

- President George Washington

See you at the rally today, friends.

Alright, just a notice to all those liberty-minded folks who don’t already know: we’re having a tax protest in the spirit of the Santelli Tea Party (see video below) this coming Friday at noon at Legislative Plaza in Downtown Nashville. If you’re coming, answer in kind on the poll to your right, and make sure we know about it on the Facebook event page.

I’ll have updates with photos here afterwards.

Admit it. You’ve wondered why there are two houses of Congress, right? Well, I’ll admit it then. This is something I’d never really understood about the Framers’ original intentions for election to the Senate. George Will explains:

The Framers established election of senators by state legislators, under which system the nation got the Great Triumvirate (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun) and thrived. In 1913, progressives, believing that more, and more direct, democracy is always wonderful, got the 17th Amendment ratified. It stipulates popular election of senators, under which system Wisconsin has elected, among others, Joe McCarthy, as well as Feingold.

Okay, so originally, the Framers wanted Senators elected to serve by the State legislators. Actually, this makes a great deal of sense. After all, someone is supposed to be an ambassador from each of the States to the Federal Government. The House of Representatives is already representing the people.

The Framers gave the three political components of the federal government (the House, Senate and presidency) different electors (the people, the state legislatures and the electoral college as originally intended) to reinforce the principle of separation of powers, by which government is checked and balanced.

Furthermore, grounding the Senate in state legislatures served the structure of federalism. Giving the states an important role in determining the composition of the federal government gave the states power to resist what has happened since 1913 — the progressive (in two senses) reduction of the states to administrative extensions of the federal government.

And that is certainly a problem I’ve noticed. Full Op/Ed here.

Many of us have become inspired with the idea of a Tea Party for our own times to protest government intervention into our lives. Before we do this, we need to reflect on the original Tea Party:

The decision to dump 45 tons of tea into Boston Harbor wasn’t made at the spur of the moment. It had been carefully discussed and planned by the leaders of Boston’s patriot community. They knew exactly what they were doing when they boarded those three ships and began breaking open the heavy chests filled with tea from the East India Trading Company. They were committing an act of insurrection, not political theater. 

This can’t be merely a show, folks. Think carefully about your involvement in this. What our government continues to perpetrate upon us—all the while convincing the weak-minded among us that it is for our benefit—is egregious. They have consistently gone too far, and I am unwilling to further accept this generational theft and regulation of my pursuit of Happiness lying down. We must be deliberate:

Are we content to merely register our disapproval, or are we seeking to change what Congress and our president have done? If it is the former, I’m sure the politicians will note our objection, and wait for us to quiet down. If it is the latter, I fear our current protests are too scatter-shot to do any real good. 

What is the target of our protest? Are we protesting the President and Congress for an act already passed, or are we petitioning our state and local governments to refuse to accept the stimulus money?

What do we do if these protests do not result in the change in policies we are asking for? What happens next?

We must take Clarendon’s words to sober thought. What is our intention here?

And a word from Dr. Joseph Warren, addressing a crowd that gathered to commemorate the Boston Massacre only shortly before the Battle at Lexington Green:

Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of. Our enemies are numerous and powerful; but we have many friends, determining to be free, and heaven and earth will aid the resolution. On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important question, on which rest the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves. The faltering tongue of hoary age calls on you to support your country. The lisping infant raises its suppliant hands, imploring defence against the monster slavery. Your fathers look from their celestial seats with smiling approbation on their sons, who boldly stand forth in the cause of virtue; but sternly frown upon the inhuman miscreant, who, to secure the loaves and fishes to himself, would breed a serpent to destroy his children.

Which of the above described are you? Are you willing to sacrifice self for the freedom and liberty of our sons and daughters? Or will you trade it all—the Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness for Americans to come—to selfishly grab the rancid scraps given you from leaders vested with the interest to keep you dependent?

Think about this, my countrymen. Inspect your will carefully. And if you recognize that you were placed in this very moment in time for a definite reason…

If your eyes have become moist with the broken promises of a neglectful God-state: forever demanding more, unable to deliver, proven inept with breath-taking regularity…

If you have grown weary of watching your fellow countrymen of different race or class pitted against each other for political gain…

If you are no longer content with the mere feelings of admiration for our fictional heroes on screen, join us. Become that which you so admire. Recognize with brutal honesty that the thirteen colonies did not have unanimous support; they too had to vigorously fight the status quo. There are always those among us unwilling to ruffle the feathers for fear of losing the few bits they still have. If your life goal is to remain inoffensive, you will have lived an unremarkable life indeed.

So with respectful approach, take yourself to the moment in time our forefathers recognized the grave injustice directed upon their fellow countrymen—and the millions to come—and purposed their lives to change it.

…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…

- Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Here we go, banning hate speech seems all well and good. (Unless, of course, you’ve read any dystopian novel. Ever.) And if you’re the type who finds yourself rather unpleased with the rights of others to say unpleasant things about you, this definition from a gov’t funded study makes a solid stab at removing any meaningful protection of the first amendment:

We identified four types of speech that, through negative statements, create a climate of hate and prejudice: (1) false facts [including "simple falsehoods, exaggerated statements, or decontextualized facts [that] rendered the statements misleading”], (2) flawed argumentation, (3) divisive language, and (4) dehumanizing metaphors.

Much more here. Note, of course, how the examples provided at the link are so undeniably subjective. Yet another reason why “fairness” is such a horrible, horrible end goal for us to pursue through government means.

Every disease that submits to a cure shall be cured: but we will not call blue yellow to please those who insist on still having jaundice, nor make a midden of the world’s garden for the sake of some who cannot abide the smell of roses.

- C. S. Lewis

No. I will not.

I will gladly and openly discuss with anyone the many different aspects and ramifications of gravity, but when a man begins demanding proof that gravity is true, it is precisely at that very moment that my genial conversation with him is finished. It has become apparent to me that this man is merely a contrarian, and I’ve much more valuable ways of spending my time than proving to a person who seems barely able to make use of all their senses that a force which clearly acts upon him does, in fact, exist. It has been said that those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still. I quite agree and do not see myself as a champion of persuasion. 

I find it much the same with attempting to prove God.

I am not shaken by the arguments against God, no matter how watertight they seem. At the end of the day, my own inability to prove existence—or the far better attempts made by men much greater than this author—does not in itself prove non-existence. And while there are compelling theological and philosophical arguments lending to a god, it is simply impossible to prove that God does not exist. A negative can never be proven, thanks to the simple truth that everything cannot be known. To claim definitively that God does not exist is really a very bold claim: it is a person’s assertion that they cannot at any point henceforth gain knowledge. The agnostic I can respect; the atheist I cannot.

A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him, than can a lunatic put out the sun by scrawling the word “darkness” on the walls of his cell.

- C.S. Lewis

It is ridiculous for a person with a non-belief to take umbrage with another man’s belief. Not the social ramifications of that second man’s belief, mind you, but merely the belief itself. It is merely a symptom of our unholy compulsion to rank ourselves above others. Only a backwards rube could believe such a thing. You still believe old fairy-tales, and I do not. I must be more advanced than you.

Having never seen a particular city, could you rightfully become enraged at another man’s day-dreams, songs, speeches, and social gatherings, the object of which is the admiration of this city? Not at all. At best, you would be wasting your time. At worst, you would be seen as a complete lunatic.

On the other hand, if you had been the city visitor and the man who doesn’t believe in the existence of this city were to challenge you on it, could you become rightfully enraged? Perhaps so, but what is the point? You’ve seen it, you’ve experienced it. He has not. If he persists in causing a ruckus after a friendly explanation, my recommendation is to let him go about his rabid way. His unbelief does not suddenly cause that city to be swallowed up in the earth, and bringing yourself to foment for the purpose of persuasion is just a waste.

Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.

- G.K. Chesterton

Doesn’t make much sense, but then again, Islamic extremists haven’t been accused of an abundance of reasoning as far as I can recall. Indian newspaper columnist Johann Hari has been lambasted by the extremists for offending, and the publisher and editor who reprinted his commentary have both been arrested on the grounds of “deliberately acting with malicious intent to outrage religious feelings.” Mind you, India is the world’s largest democracy, and their constitution protects freedom of speech as well. Hari’s response:

Offending fundamentalists isn’t my goal – but if it is an inevitable side-effect of defending human rights, so be it. If fanatics who believe Muslim women should be imprisoned in their homes and gay people should be killed are insulted by my arguments, I don’t resile from it. Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone.

You do not have a right to be ring-fenced from offence. Every day, I am offended -– not least by ancient religious texts filled with hate-speech. But I am glad, because I know that the price of taking offence is that I can give it too, if that is where the facts lead me. But again, the protestors propose a lop-sided world. They do not propose to stop voicing their own heinously offensive views about women’s rights or homosexuality, but we have to shut up and take it – or we are the ones being “insulting”.

Indeed. Read the whole response here.