And Anonymous or Anonymouses have been particular busy doing so lately.
On my last blog post I got a comment by one of my Anonymouses that used language masterfully couched to imply that hopelessness is the proper emotion of those of us who would like to see them actually apply the Constitution inside the Beltway.
The comment started innocuously enough:
" I just stumbled on your blog. It's thoughtful and delightful reading. "
Thanks, for the left-handed compliment. Then there's this:
"I also occasionally check in on Schulz' quixotic pursuit of petition and redress. Petition's there in the first amendment, of course, right at the end--it's hard not to snicker at "capstone"--and preceded by a phrase informing us that Congress shall make no law limiting the right to petition."
The word 'quixotic' evokes a kind of pathetic action, such as tilting at windmills, that is doomed to fail. It is romantic and idealistic, but alas, impractical and unrealistic. It also implies a superior sort of worldliness on the part of the user, and thus the reader should surmise that Anonymous is above those sorts of spectacular feats of craziness.
However, the term quixotic should not be applied without a clear understanding of what the goal of an action is. Bob Schulz understood after one or two petitions that he would never get a cogent response to the Petitions for Redress of Grievance. Since that time, getting a response is not the goal. The goal is to document that people have formally petitioned all three branches of the federal government for Redress, and indeed have done so over and over again, and have received no response except repeated injury. In other words, the goal of the petitions is to document for the American people that our government is an outlaw government; that is, it is no longer governing according to our Constitution. It is also to document for posterity what happened and why. Thus, the action is not quixotic. It is working exactly as planned and the purpose is being met.
Then there's this:
"In the age of emailing the White House, press credentials given to bloggers, and Obama on Leno, petition seems quaint, at best."
It is clear here that Anonymous either deliberately or unthinkingly misunderstands the Petition for Redress. I highly recommend that he go back and check out the quote from the Magna Carta. E-mailing the White House and blogging do not represent formal petitions for Redress of Grievance. And in press conferences (such as the one last night), the questioners are carefully chosen and then often given non-answers straight from the talking points on the Teleprompter of the United States.
As for the Leno interview, the remark about the Special Olympics (they let Obama speak without TOTUS present, more's the pity) led to a new injury, and the whole thing had the air of Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
But consider also Anonymous's diction. In particular, notice the word "quaint." As in: 'Oh, yes, the Constitution. That quaint document. In these days of Obama on Leno, it is only to be taken seriously by the likes of those tiresome libertarians and militia people.' Again, note the worldly-wise tone, that tells us that one of the most brilliant documents of government ever written can be lightly dismissed by Anonymous, because he is oh so modern and politically correct. I can almost hear the Keith Olbermann fake-Shakespearian accent.
Then we get this:
"It's been invoked recently to challenge Obama's qualification for the presidency. So, it's clearly being exercised with the utmost gravity."
Ah, the kitten has some claws. But again, Anonymous, misses the point. The Petitions for Redress reflect the concerns of various citizens. The point is not that they are right or wrong. Or even, as the worldly Anonymous implies, stupid. No, the point is that a citizen, from the time of the Magna Carta until now, had the right to Petition and receive an answer. Is the income tax unconstitutional or not? Is Mr. Obama qualifed to be president of the United States according to the Constitution or not? Neither of these have received an answer.
And here anonymous goes in for the imagined kill:
"In any case, if the government takes active steps to quash such important petitions, you'll have a real case. Otherwise, I hope the snacks at the congress are tasty."
Apparently, Anonymous does not bother to read carefully. I wonder if s/he is related to the NYT science reporters? You know, the type that report on a study and get it exactly wrong, though politically correct?
Because we're done petitioning. The Continental Congress is assembling to consider what we ought to do now that we have demonstrated and documented that the federal government is in brazen defiance to the Constitution. Consider this from the 1774 Act of the First Continental Congress:
“ If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."
and this from Thomas Jefferson's 1775 reply to Lord North:
“The privilege of giving or withholding our money is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative which if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession for redress of grievances and establishment of rights, and how improvident would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator."
And this from the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution:
“Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection,and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”
It is, of course, quite possible that resistance is futile. But we cannot know until we try. Of course, sophisticated people like the erudite Anonymous have already joined the Borg.
You can tell by the code words. The collective never constructs a decent argument. It just tries to insult us into silence as quaint and quixotic. (I guess he opened his dictionary to the Q's).
"We are the arbiters of political correctness. Resistance is futile. You will be laughed into assimilation."
Be very afraid.