the primer in a rimfire cartridge

There’s a story in the book of Genesis (Bible) about the clamor raised against the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. As such, God decided to destroy both cities. Although, Abraham, one of God’s chosen meekly proposed an alternate action in the hope of staving off destruction. Starting with fifty lives, the two bargained down to saving Sodom if ten righteous people were found. Sadly, none were, so Lot, his wife and two daughters were the only survivors, even though the wife became a pillar of salt after being warned not to but looked back as the destruction unfolded. The story then makes one wonder about people overall. A relatable correlation on two fronts. First, the entirety of it is a reflection of America today. And, in an illogical sense, what I’m writing here.

In my last post: there’s always a first and a last, the desire was for it to be my last, believing the effort was not worth the results. At times, I’ve received words of thanks for the writing, but one commented on my resignation and it truly resonated: I feel what you write is true and will make me a better politically educated person. They even volunteered to pay for a subscription. And trust me, if my words were monetizable, I’d be on board. Though the compliments I’ve received, and I believe were heartfelt, I’ve also been humbled beyond belief. My efforts have unknowingly made a difference. The inverse of calamity being destroyed by God, but of striving to build a foundation of truthful integrity for the nation to continue into perpetuity: albeit a potentially hopeless endeavor overall on my part.

I love my country, but it saddens me how stupid we are as a people. Through email and Facebook, attention spans have devolved to memes, negating any desire for in-depth study of the issues we all face as a nation of many cultures. Like obtaining all of one’s nutritional needs from a box of Froot Loops, with Toucan Sam leading the way: Just follow your nose! It always knows! Then national loyalty? Today it’s about political parties, not country. Whereby one no longer delves into the concept of deceptions presented, but stands solely with what is espoused, without knowledge of the right or wrong of an argument or stance. Basically, philosophical gibberish to shout down or force out an opposing viewpoint, negating the truth behind the documents framing the country. And conversely, the supposed opposing, but actual cojoining perspectives of both political parties to undo the nation as it was designed. The discombobulation of facts behind the Framer’s belief in WE THE PEOPLE:

Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people; each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign States. (Federalist 2)

But has the nation always “uniformly been one people” in the concept of belief today. And did the Framer’s genuinely believe the notion of “one nation for all?” In all things, wording is important. And to understand the belying of reality behind the thought process of what one really believes, others must read, listen, and research. Not doing so, puts one on a fool’s errand. While some voices claim a united nation for all from the start, others claim an opposing position, the nation being the antithesis of good, the fallible part of the Framer’s truth. Were the Framer’s perfect; hardly. Were their beliefs in line with the version of America today? I believe not. Did they believe in the inclusivity of all people? Their perspective: 

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people; a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and Independence. (Federalist 2)

Yet, as the centuries passed, dilution of one culture into the mixing of many to become one nation became the calling card of America, and the prejudices of culture or color bred in family fomented a hatred of others. None greater initially than the southern States. Instilled with the belief: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (Declaration of Independence), were the precepts really believed. While in their day, the nation’s Framer’s felt the only true national course was the abolition of slavery if believing in the theory of American greatness. Except, hatred and a lack of knowledge allows division to prosper, while division creates a power base, destroying the foundation of country to create something different, bearing in mind a leopard can’t change its spots, but uses them as camouflage:

It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years  may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren! Attempts have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice, and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government. (Federalist 42)

While kicking the can then allowed a compromise for an overall national structure to be perfected, today they are accused of being racist bigots. Words not in their lexicon. Yet, twenty-years later, government again kicked the can. An oppositional similarity to those currently serving the people who are decidedly in favor of wholesale change while they overtly present as proponents of those served, yet covertly destroy the very fabric the nation lives by. Like then, an unpreventable buyer beware which should have every citizen wary. So, as the nation continues to unravel at the behest of government itself, always remember the biblical story of the adulterer caught. As the tango itself needed two, but only one was charged. A similar accusation laid against our nation by the very parties’ agenda to destroy what should be preserved. Facing a contingent of those ready to stone her to death, Jesus proclaimed: If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. WE THE PEOPLE bear the same charge against ourselves, remembering:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed (Declaration of Independence). Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Yet isn’t truth learned through the voices of those whose purpose is to build and instill knowledge based in fact? But when the purpose is to take and destroy, truth becomes a lie in the form of a desire to deceive.

If the impetus of the people is to only vote to achieve change, what is one then voting for, and what change is expected in the outcome? While party promotes confusion, and the electorate follows ignorance, what becomes of truth in words. Because, if successful in action, those in power will not suffer the same fate as those who will have to live by the tyranny of the deception enacted. As well, the choice to prevent anarchy is incumbent on understanding the desire of constitutional intent to make certain it doesn’t become another’s agenda to pervert. And, for the positive feedback from readers, many thanks for the support. Only now, let’s engage. Regards!