Thursday, March 20, 2014



 Namazu AAB's Star Analyst

 In my entire 3,000 years of existence I've had the opportunity to see biped civilizations rise and the fall and the antics of the bipeds who dominate the planet as a species in infinite variety. Of the biped antics I've observed the rise of the American experiment has been the most interesting and entertaining.  The twentieth century in particular was most interesting and emerged literally as "the American century".  From the viewpoint of a traditional maritime observer ( what else would I be I live in the Sea of Japan?) the rise of the United States to world leadership was preceded and made possible by the rise of the sea power of the United States , particularly the U.S. Navy, to ruler of the waves. I have lectured the English speaking peoples long and hard on the necessity to form an English speaking naval union in the face of shrinking U.S. naval power. I have also urged all English speaking nations to stop shrinking their individual naval power. But the unilateral naval disarming goes on.

 Recently the American Republic narrowly escaped another and ultimate kind of disarming. The American Revolution was fought by citizen soldiers who at least in the early days of the war provided their own personal fire arms. The right to keep personal arms is a constitutionally assured right of every American and the "assurance in steel" of American personal liberties. That's right folks your right to possess arms is not about hunting, it is about resistance to illegal domestic government acts and invading foreign forces that might get past the official military national defenses. During WWII the Japanese pondered the question of invading the U.S. West Coast and decided against it at a time when they could have easily over whelmed the official military forces.  What deterred them from an amphibious landing and perhaps occupying Los Angeles? History records that it was the voices of Japanese commanders who had actually visited the United States . They were well aware of the armed citizenry and predicted that any occupation force would eventually be decimated by "civilian manned guns behind virtually every blade of grass."

 Now let's suppose that you are adamantly and illogically against private gun ownership and no argument can convince you that it is ever necessary. You still have to admit that it is a specifically described personal right in the U.S. Constitution, so the only lawful way to take away a constitutional right would be through amendment; though an argument can certainly be made that the contents of the Bill of Rights may be considered "inalienable" and not subject to any whim of the state. Wouldn't you have to agree that any legislator who would cheerfully surrender one of your constitutional rights to foreign powers can't be trusted to "up hold and defend" the constitution and any of the rights that you may actually care about, even if you don't want to personally own a firearm?

Treason is a loaded and dangerous term. Great Britain over used it as a term and a criminal charge to suppress colonial disagreements with their over lords. The American founding fathers were very careful to limit the U.S. legal definition of treason to acts that aid and abet the armed enemies of the United States in war. So legislators who would cheerfully surrender any one of your constitutional rights to a collection of foreign powers can not be legally charged with "treason". But what term besides "traitor" would you use to describe an elected office holder who  turned his or her back on their sworn duty to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States and who voted to surrender one of your enumerated constitutional rights to a foreign power?

Recently the U.S. Senate voted 51 to 43 not to allow the United States to participate in a United Nations campaign to confiscate all privately held firearms within the boundaries of the nations that sign the compact. As an observer of history, I believe that the American bipeds deserve to know exactly who the 43 office holders were who betrayed their oaths and narrowly missed surrendering an American constitutional right to a collection of foreign powers. The list and party affiliations of those individuals is below. Had they prevailed
the present occupant of the White House was prepared to sign the bill and lobbied for it. Treason? It would be legally inaccurate to call it that. But what would you call it in a moral sense? Can you ever trust any of the below listed office holders with any of your constitutional rights if they are willing to surrender one based on their personal preferences?


Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA )
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)j
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D- CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

No comments:

Post a Comment