Monday, March 26, 2012

The Great Divide

Written the day after Idaho's Presidential Caucus

There are a few times in my life when I realize how optimistically naive I am sometimes. Last night was one of those cases. I really did think that there were more than 1,766 people in Ada County who cared enough about their freedom to take a few hours out of the routine of their lives and vote for liberty. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Dead wrong.

For whatever multitude of reasons, many of them good ones I’m sure, the 100 people that would have placed Ron Paul and the cause of liberty in 2nd place were not there. I myself know half that number of Ada County Residents who profess with their mouth that they love liberty, but their actions showed otherwise last night. Lest I sound like a sore loser my real heartbreak lies in this unspoken tacit consent that any Republican candidate is better than the Democratic one. It seems as if folks feel like they can take a stand the next time around. Ladies and Gentlemen, there may be no “next time around.”

I know it’s hard to exchange our comfort, security, and seeming peace, but we are paying for these facades of freedom with our liberty and our future. Just think for one moment about what your life would have been like if our founding fathers had said they’d take a stand “the next time around.” You and I would most likely be living in utter poverty in a totally socialistic regime. Thank God for men who did what it took for the cause of liberty. And, we can’t even take 3 or 4 hours to make the statement that needs to be made at this time.

The words of Patrick Henry’s famous speech are echoing in my mind:

“They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power...There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!...Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace.”

What will it take to rouse us from our slumber? I would suggest a rallying cry like Paul Revere’s, and if that is what it takes then give me the horse and I will ride and proclaim,

“Awake and to Arms! The redcoats of our day are already amongst us! They try to kill your children and if they can’t then they teach them in the government schools. They tax your money and your property! They invade your privacy. They deface the value of your currency.”

We must fight now or never. There is a great divide between those who care about liberty for now and the next generations, and those who don’t. I fear that it may never be bridged.

We may be tempted to say in our hearts “Peace. Peace.”

But, ladies and gentlemen, there is no peace.

1 comment:

  1. got my cranium going... :P
    You're right - that kind of peace is an illusion. To be quite frank, we won't find peace, or freedom, in voting - not even if it's for a constitutional president.
    This country upheld strong Christian principles in the beginning, as you well know. Interesting, though, that things started going down hill after the Constitution was written. Perhaps that's just coincidence, but I'm beginning to wonder.
    I know this, the Constitution can't save us, nor give us this illusive peace. If you ask me, I don't think much of where the Constitution has gotten us so far and I don't think it will do much for us now or in the future.

    I think "voting for liberty" is counterproductive to liberty, do you not? We have God given, inalienable rights and liberties and I maintain that we have them whether someone votes that we have them or not. If you have to vote for a liberty, would not that, in itself, make it a privilege?

    If I agree to vote on an issue, that means I have to play along with the "consensus", right? In other words, if I vote for the liberty to do xyz and two others vote against it, then I just lost my liberty. Or I can refuse to play that game and keep my liberties.
    It's not just peace that is an illusion. This whole government game could be an illusion too.

    I don't know, maybe that's what some of these no-shows were thinking. :) Voting is obviously not doing the freedom loving people a whole lot of good, so why participate?

    Just some thoughts thrown out there...:D