So what led up to the attack? Was it because I believe the Constitution should be enforced as written, that I believe our liberties are slowly but surely being removed by a government that has only one intent - complete control?
Was it bacause I believe members of government should have a complete understanding of the Constitution? Perhaps this is too much to expect out of elected officials but how in the world can a person support something they do not know or understand?
Was it because I believe members of Congress should tell the truth, that they should have the highest degrees of integrity possible, that corruption in government must be eleminated, that the same laws applied to the public should also be applied to people in government, or was it because I believe politicians must not respond to bribes?
Or maybe it was because I believe the most fair way to financially support the federal government is by the method provided in the Constitution. - a methodol, I might add, that the 16th Amendment supported (instead of authorizing government a different way to obtain funds).
Or maybe it was because I believe bills should be written simply and in language that voting age American adults can understand, that any person reading any bill would interpret it exactly the same way?
Surely the attack didn’t come about because I believe bills should not have any additional legislation added to them, that bills MUST focus on the topic of the bill with any other legislation presented in a separate bill?
Or was it because I believe the Second Amendment must not be affected any more than it already has been? Of course, I think this partly because any additional tampering with the amendment tampers with our Constitution. Tampered with enough and it will no longer be the Constitution but, instead, some distorted, worthless piece of scrap paper.
Or maybe because I believe the Second Amendment to be our last defense of our liberties. It is - and that is the reason it is in the Constitution. Our forefathers understood the necessity; it’s too bad all of our people don’t, especially media forms who apparently have been sucked into the subterfuge of the government as a benevolent entity.
JFK must have understood when he said, “If we make peaceful revolution impossible, we make violent revolution inevitable.” (Thanks to Claire Wolfe for this quote from John Kennedy) But, of course, JFK was assassinated so we will never know. (Maybe our government does understand. Therefore, the push to control weapons and the ability to track all citizens.)
At any rate, my stating my belief in the ability of the government to conduct surveillance of citizens and track them surely didn’t cause the accusation of being mentally unbalanced since it is common knowledge our government has conducted such activities for quite some time. (I just wish
to hell dead beat fathers would not be dead beat fathers. Then we would see what the next excuse the government would use for stressing the necessity of tracking. I would guess it
would be something about the war against drugs.)
Even though the publication may call itself a Free Press, I don’t believe it is so in practice. Maybe it is simply a biased publication. If so, their toes get stepped on easily and do not print anything contrary to their beliefs. Thus, they effectively remove the freedom of speech from those in opposition to them.
I am enough of a psychologist to know “JUNK” and “Unbalanced” were added to the block with the intent of hurting my feelings. With my belief in being honest, it did upset me momentarily - hence, the title of this piece. But, then, my thoughts changed. The end result was it made clear to me that I got a reaction which has been one of my goals. One might even think the editor or whoever did the blocking, feared printing a layman's perceptions of the truth about government and our Constitutional liberties.
And, of course, it does take courage to align one’s self for debate but none whatsoever to block another’s thoughts rather than reading with the potential of presenting those thoughts to as many people as possible.
Thus, the block served another purpose I am sure the editor didn’t have in mind - that of increasing my resolve to see the Constitution of the United States applied as written and to do as much as I can to assure a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people’.