The World Turned Upside Down

Since we are getting into how screwed up things can be when one forgets the lessons of history, or succombs to a more pleasing revised version of history, I present the ballad The World Turned Upside Down.

This was first published on a broadside in 1643 as a protest against the policies of Parliament relating to the celebration of Christmas. Parliament believed the holiday should be a solemn occasion, and outlawed traditional English Christmas celebrations. There are several versions of the lyrics. It is sung to the tune of another ballad, "When the King Enjoys His Own Again".

Listen to me and you shall hear, news hath not been this thousand year:

Since Herod, Caesar, and many more, you never heard the like before.

Holy-dayes are despis'd, new fashions are devis'd.

Old Christmas is kicked out of Tow

Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.

The wise men did rejoyce to see our Savior Christs Nativity:

The Angels did good tidings bring, the Sheepheards did rejoyce and sing.

Let all honest men, take example by them.

Why should we from good Laws be bound?

Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.

Command is given, we must obey, and quite forget old Christmas day:

Kill a thousand men, or a Town regain, we will give thanks and praise amain.

The wine pot shall clinke, we will feast and drinke.

And then strange motions will abound.

Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.

Our Lords and Knights, and Gentry too, doe mean old fashions to forgoe:

They set a porter at the gate, that none must enter in thereat.

They count it a sin, when poor people come in.

Hospitality it selfe is drown'd.

Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.

The serving men doe sit and whine, and thinke it long ere dinner time:

The Butler's still out of the way, or else my Lady keeps the key,

The poor old cook, in the larder doth look,

Where is no goodnesse to be found,

Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.

To conclude, I'le tell you news that's right, Christmas was kil'd at Naseby fight:

Charity was slain at that same time, Jack Tell troth too, a friend of mine,

Likewise then did die, rost beef and shred pie,

Pig, Goose and Capon no quarter found.

Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.

Of course, those who take the term "Conservative", yet are hardly holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, are more than willing to turn the world upside down.

Even more amusing are the ancestors of the Puritans who want to put "Christ back into Christmas" when Christians were trying to ignore the holiday because of its pagan connections.

Prayer Decision Follow Up

The High Court decision regarding the Bideford Council's institutionalised prayer has come under criticism from Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury who said the Christian faith is facing "gradual marginalisation".

Indeed, we have an established Church which has shown openness and welcomed Jews and Muslims over the Centuries. In fact, it has shown great tolerance for Catholics as well, and sometimes even fellow protestants.

Great tolerance was shown for the Jews of Lincoln and York.

And the Tudors demonstrated great tolerance for dissent in matters of faith.

And well,we know about Medieval tolerance for the Muslim faith. Fortunately, most of Britains Muslims have only arrived recently.

The beauty of having government and religion intertwined is shown throughout British (and Scottish) history--as well as most of European History. So much so that the nascent United States was secular nation founded upon religious freedom.

As the Vicar of Bray pointed out:

In good King Charles's golden days,
When loyalty had no harm in't,
A zealous High Churchman I was,
And so I gained preferment.
To teach my flock I never missed:
Kings were by God appointed;
And they are damned who dare resist
Or touch the Lord's anointed.

And this is law I will maintain
Until my dying day, sir,
That whatsoever King shall reign,
I'll be Vicar of Bray, sir.

When Royal James obtained the Throne,
And Popery grew in fashion,
The Penal Law I hooted down,
And read the Declaration;
The Church of Rome I found would fit
Full well my constitution;
And I had been a Jesuit
But for the Revolution.

And this is law I will maintain
Until my dying day, sir,
That whatsoever King shall reign,
I'll be Vicar of Bray, sir.

When William, our deliverer, came
To heal the nation's grievance,
Then I turned cat-in-pan again,
And swore to him allegiance
Old principles I did revoke,
Set conscience at a distance,
Passive obedience was a joke,
A jest was non-resistance.

And this is law I will maintain
Until my dying day, sir,
That whatsoever King shall reign,
I'll be Vicar of Bray, sir.

When glorious Anne became our Queen,
The Church of England's glory,
Another face of things was seen,
And I became a Tory.
Occasional Conformist Face!
I damned such moderation;
And thought the Church in danger was
By such prevarication.

And this is law I will maintain
Until my dying day, sir,
That whatsoever King shall reign,
I'll be Vicar of Bray, sir.

When George in pudding-time came o'er
And moderate men looked big, sir,
My principles I changed once more,
And so became a Whig, sir;
And thus preferment I procured
From our Faith's great Defender;
And almost every day abjured
The Pope and the Pretender.

And this is law I will maintain
Until my dying day, sir,
That whatsoever King shall reign,
I'll be Vicar of Bray, sir.

The illustrious House of Hanover,
And Protestant Succession,
By these I lustily will swear
While they can keep possession
For in my faith and loyalty
I never once will falter,
But George my King shall ever be,
Except the times do alter.

And this is law I will maintain
Until my dying day, sir,
That whatsoever King shall reign,
I'll be Vicar of Bray, sir.

Alas, the US would prefer to follow the path of tolerance as shown by its European Cousins rather than that created by the founders.

Patrick Henry, The Militia, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Henry Mayer, a Patrick Henry scholar, regarding the use of Patrick Henry to support an individual right to own arms outside the militia context:

In this connection, however, I need to say something about a recent popular misconception concerning Patrick Henry’s legacy and the genesis of the Second Amendment, which states, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Despite efforts of a number of misguided scholars to construe this language as justifying individual, unregulated gun ownership, I am firmly convinced that the Second Amendment is concerned with the state’s power to control its own militia as a civilian alternative to a professional standing army. In raising the issue in the Virginia Convention Patrick Henry several times pointed to Art. I, Section 8, Clause 16, as an example of the potentially threatening effect of dual state and congressional jurisdiction over the militia and the possibly dangerous union of the purse and sword vested in Congress. Yet wielding the scholar’s power of the ellipse several partisans of gun ownership have edited Henry’s remarks about how best to regulate the militia into an inflammatory half-truth “The great object is that every man be armed….Every one who is able may have a gun.” The NRA has blown this up into a poster-sized blurb embossed with Patrick Henry’s image.

This is not, I repeat NOT, part of Patrick Henry’s legacy. Clearly speaking of the problem of militia organization, what he actually said is, “The great object is that every man [of the militia] be armed.–But can the people to afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance….”

Not to belabor the argument, but cinch it, I would also remind you that the liberty or death speech itself was in support of a resolution to put the colony in a mode of defense, and the plan proposed by Henry’s committee as a result of its passage included a militia law that described in great detail not only the number of men, but the amount of ammunition to be raised by a collective levy, and a very clear procedure for maintaining county and provincial control over the militia system. If Henry’s remarks were intended to cast doubt upon the adequacy of a hypothetical Congressional militia law, they only affirmed his commitment to the traditional method of state control over a militia that, far from being a privatized collection of gun-toting individuals, was a community temporarily called to arms and always subservient to public authority and law.

from A PATRICK HENRY ESSAY(No. 5-98), THE POLITICAL LEGACY OF PATRICK HENRY

Unfortunately, this quotation was once to found on the Patrick Henry homestead website, but it has since vanished. Of course,such censorship if it is not the result of government action is constitutional, but it skews history. That is why I am once again posting this.

I will also post the original quotations made by Henry:

Anyway, if one goes to the primary sources such as Patrick Henry’s comments in regard to the Constitution, one finds a direct reference to the Federal power over the militia in relation to the Second Amendment and the need to preserve state militias from Federal interference.

Patrick Henry, Against the Federal Constitution (June 5, 1788) Argument IV: against the standing army Constitution: Article I Section 8

8.1 You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.
9.1 Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States—reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
9.2 By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither—this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shown that a very small minority may prevent it, and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression.

or Patrick Henry’s “That every man be armed” speech found at The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (3 Elliot’s Debates 384-7), Virginia, Saturday, June 14, 1788. Page 386-7

As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of “arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.” To the state legislatures is given the power of “appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects…May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavoured to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties, and when you speak of arming the militia by a concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world for trusting your safety implicitly to implication.

Natural Rights and Freedom

About natural law and freedom, I saw an interesting thing this morning. We had the second snow storm in two weeks last night. 10 inches last week, about 3 last night. These are unprecedented events here. Even the old timers cannot remember anything like this. (I may post something about this for the climate change deniers.)

I was walking this morning and came upon a blocked street. The intersection led to a very severe downhill which would have been icy and dangerous to drive on. The City put up barricades with signs on them that reminded me of Nazi Germany - Verboten.

My right to drive down that street has been removed by the government. The reason, I suppose is because if I did I could hurt myself and others, people live along that street and at the bottom of the hill.

I accept this just as the gun owner should accept the gun control laws which prevent him from hurting yourself and others.

Georgia Man Atibi Thomas - Attempted Murder or Honest Mistake?

Police One reports on a complicated shooting story which we'll need to watch. In Georgia they suffer from two, sometimes conflicting, fallacies. One is that gun rights are sacred and what legitimate gun owners do with their guns gets a lot of leeway. The other is that cops are better and more important then the rest of us. "Cop killer" is one of the lowest forms of murderers. This story has both. And of course there's that other fallacy about race, but let's ignore that one, shall we?

This defendant's case is not typical, but officer says his guilt is obvious.

On a day where almost everything went wrong, Atibi Thomas and Keith Roach were lucky about one thing when they met nearly two years ago: Roach wore his bulletproof vest.

If Roach had removed the vest when he ended his shift as an Atlanta police officer at 3 p.m. on May 29, 2010, he would be dead and Thomas would be facing a life sentence in prison — if not the death penalty — instead of the 25 years he faces this week.

Thomas shot Roach three times when the officer was in full uniform, fracturing Roach's rib, piercing both arms and shattering a cellphone in a pocket above the officer's heart. Why? He said he thought the officer was a crook.

In describing the action which took place immediately before the shooting, Thomas's being a concealed carry guy was confirmed.

Thomas prepared for trouble. He put his Glock .357 semi-automatic pistol, which he was licensed to carry, into his side pocket.

He says he's innocent. What do you think? If not attempted murder, he's bound to be convicted of something, wouldn't you think?

Please leave a comment.

Illinois State Gun Registry

Gov. Pat Quinn

The State Journal-Register of Springfield, Illinois reports

on the Governor's cool response to Mayor Emanuel's proposed state-wide gun registration, an "uphill climb" he called it.

Emanuel, who proposed the idea on Thursday, said the registry would help the Chicago Police Department trace guns that come from outside the city. Chicago has a gun registry, but the state does not.

Sen. Larry Bomke, R-Springfield, said Emanuel is overstepping his bounds.

“I, like most Downstaters, are a little sick of the mayor of Chicago acting like he is the governor of Illinois,” Bomke said, adding the legislation only punishes law-abiding citizens and do not stop criminals from getting weapons.

Now, why do the pro-gun guys keep doing that? They exaggerate the supposed offenses of the gun control folks and then argue against those exaggerated claims.

What Sen. Bomke said is wrong on two counts. 

First, no one is being "punished."  Gun-rights fanatics coined that famous phrase as a way of misleading.  When it serves their purposes they love to play the victim.  Do people feel punished when they have to get a driver's license?  Of course not.  In the same way, law abiding citizens who don't have a gun-rights ax to grind, would not feel punished by even the strictest gun control measures.

Second, proper gun control laws would have an immediate and direct impact on the criminal's ability go get guns. This is so obvious that it becomes tedious arguing over it.  Almost all guns in criminal hands originally were the property of lawful gun owners, either at the level of the gun manufacturer, the FFL gun seller or the individual.  In various ways these guns are slipping into the criminal world, therefore stricter controls would positively impact that lethal mechanism.

Only dishonest and biased gun-rights advocates deny these two obvious things.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Applying Castle Doctrine, this Guy Would Have Been Shot

I don't agree with the laxer Castle Doctrine laws; I agree with Laci that they amount to a license to kill.

Given the circumstances shown in this video, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out this man who intruded was in fact in some way harmlessly and innocently impaired. While it is possible that impairment was from a controlled substance, it is just as possible that he had an unexpected reaction to a prescription drug. In any case, for unintentionally intruding while in a state of impairment and confusion, he certainly doesn't deserve to be shot, killed or injured. Too many of our gun loons make the unwarranted leap that anyone who is present without an invitation is dangerous, intends harm, and deserves gun violence from them for reasons of self defense.

Clearly, that is NOT true, and this is just one example of that. Good for this woman for responding the way she did, and thank god for this man's sake that she wasn't one of our blood lusting violence prone gun lunatics.

From MSNBC.com:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy