Thursday, December 04, 2003

When I first read Peter Mancus' Reflections Upon the U.S. Supreme Court's Rejection of Silveira, my initial reaction was, "It bleeds."

"What do you mean?" asked Founder and Executive Director Angel Shamaya when I told him my opinion of this piece.

"You can feel his pain when you read it," I explained. "You can feel his heart bleed."

Having read it again this evening, after Angel published it on our website, I stand by that assessment.

Mr. Mancus' words bleed. Every paragraph radiates hurt, anger, outrage and outright agony over the demise of our republic, the destruction of our Constitution, the enslavement of our society and the annihilation of our freedoms.

He writes with the passion and pain of a family member watching a loved one dying and unable to do anything about it.

"The United States Supreme Court rejected the Silveira v. Lockyer case, and I do not feel free. I have not felt that way for a long time. My brain’s rational thought processes convince me that I am not truly free. This is because I, and others, have been, and still are, denied one or more of our most fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, we have only the illusion of freedom and the reality of oppression. Oppression is enforced via perverted rules, misleaders and their subordinates." ...

"What value is the “right to petition to redress grievances” or to file a lawsuit (which is a form of the right to petition government for a redress of a legitimate grievance) when the petition or lawsuit or both crashes into the solid legal wall of government immunity or the government refuses to hear the petition (lawsuit) or refuses to take it seriously or refuses to apply the applicable law correctly."

"This is ironic: Government “lives” as a legal fictitious person but it does not have lungs, it does not bleed, it does not have emotions. It is a non-air breather. But Government tells the air-breathers (citizens with lungs, who bleed when cut, who have a mortal existence) they must circulate in public unarmed and vulnerable to criminal predators."

It is ironic, Mr. Mancus. People have created government, not the other way around. And now these same people are told that they exist for their state, that the state is their master, that they must follow the state's rules.
Since free men created the state to serve them, the absurdity is clear. In her first novel "We the Living," Ayn Rand puts this absurdity in perspective:

"And what is the state but a servant and a convenience for a large number of people, just like the electric light and the plumbing system? And wouldn't it be preposterous to claim that men must exist for their plumbing, not the plumbing for the men."

Yes, wouldn't it be preposterous?

And yet, that is exactly what is happening in this country. Question is: Will anyone notice?

No comments: