A is for Alone

Well, it was a success, and in more ways than one. Would be nice if there was someone to share it with, but then is there anyone who could understand it? Oh well, so maybe it's that type of life.

Late Notes 8/6/13

It was a long time ago (earlier this year), and it's a long story, but it looks like this might happen: http://www.conventionsacramento.org

It's so perplexing how folks can watch things go, and not comprehend how and why they ought to raise awareness of the solution.

Sending out Gore Vidal play, see if I can find anyone interested. Have sent out the play Sapience too.

I don't care about much anymore, I just want to make sure there's some fool like me out there saying things that ought to be said--no matter how futile such efforts appear these days.

Santa Barbara & Channel

Welcome Change

I got so frustrated with things, that I decided to go on a fast. I'm going on my sixth day today. The first three were kind of tough, but mostly because I had a headache up behind my left eye for all of day two and three. It was pretty tough, but now I feel fine and see how I could go for days and days. Not sure though.

I drink water with slices of lemon in it, and green tea, and grapefruit juice. I also just found out that if I eat a clove of garlic raw, to the point it burns the mouth, then drink hot green tea, it creates the effect of drinking a savory broth. When I'm done fasting, I'm looking forward to eating less, and eating better, maybe even making fasting a regular thing.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do with my life now. I finished a play, but wonder if it's possible to be staged in this day and age. Sending it out now. I know I want a sequel to my novel. I guess I'll chip away at it until I'm fifty, and have the epiphany align with the Steppenwolf stuff, and how I looked at the age of fifty from my twenties, and how I see it now that I'm living it. I want to take another look at how Harry Haller viewed it, and compare and contrast it to my experience.

Sure would be nice to see some real change in the world. Time will tell.

Any Day Now

I attended the latest meeting out in St. Charles, Missouri, and spoke with as many sheriffs as I could. Got cards, sent links/info, and this week made calls to follow-up. Of course I can't say who, but there is a sheriff I spoke with at length, and he is looking to arrest a member of Congress. There may also be a couple of others in addition, I hope to see the news flash any day now. This is the text I've offered them as a statement:

Good afternoon, as most Americans know, all elected officials--whether that be the President, a Senator, a Judge, or a Sheriff--swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Based on the law, evidence of criminal activity, and my own oath, I had no choice but to act in the manner in which I did, so I'd like to be clear, this was a legal action, not a political stunt.

Allow me to first provide the legal basis: Federal law regulating oath of office for elected officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331 provides text of the oath taken before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 required us to sign an affidavit that we took the oath and will not violate it during tenure of office, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 7311, which makes it a federal criminal offense to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.” Executive Order 10450 further specifies this as advocating for “the alteration of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Because our form of government is defined by the Constitution, it can only be altered by amendment. Any act which alters the fundamental operation of our constitutional form of government other than by amendment is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

Amendment proposal is a fundamental aspect of our constitutional form of government and the Constitution has fixed two modes of proposal--Congress or Convention. 2/3 of the states have applied for the alternate mode, a convention, fulfilling the legal requirement for such a convention, and Congress illegally prevents this by failing to issue the call with a time and place as required by law. The Constitution does not stipulate if applications for a convention are to be cast within a set amount of time, or for the same subject. The call is based on a simple numeric count with the foresight that there will always be individuals and groups to make excuses to prevent a convention in order to capitalize on their own interests. The legality is an objective numeric count because the letter of the law embodies the spirit of the law, that it is a right to propose amendments when the Congress fails. A recent database confirms as public record that the states have satisfied the convention clause of Article V. Whether one thinks a convention a good idea or bad idea is irrelevant, the issue is legal, not political. That's where the office of County Sheriff comes in. Not only did it come to the attention of this office that members of the 113th Congress are involved in criminal activity in violating the Constitution, it also discovered the issue has been taken up through the federal system to the Supreme Court, and all legal remedy has been exhausted.

The oath of office does not come with an instruction manual. In acting to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, this County Sheriff arrested a member of Congress, in order to alert the public that the Congress is preventing the Constitution from operating as intended. The Congress is denying the right of the People to find common ground for amendment proposals. Any fears one may have of a federal convention are without basis. A convention is nothing but a public examination of our highest laws, and requires a super-majority of states for a proposal to become law. The principle of a super majority of 3/4 for ratification makes it mathematically impossible for the People to harm themselves in the process. Unless you fear discovering what 75% or more of the People agree on, in which case, you're in the wrong country. This country and this county are founded on the principle of government for and by the People. The Article V Convention is how we're meant to find common ground in times of crisis, and members of Congress are involved in criminal activity by preventing it from happening. We will detain this member of Congress until the 113th Congress issues the call for the Article V Convention. In the meantime we encourage other County Sheriffs to also arrest any member of Congress, on the same basis, and join us in this action to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Revised Speech

Below is a speech I wrote for a sheriff. As I understand it, he's going to deliver it, or something close to it, at the next constitutional sheriff's meeting.

Good afternoon,

What’s more powerful, the right to complain about government, or the right to reform it altogether? Clearly, one right is more powerful than the other, and indeed it’s that right which makes an American citizen who and what they are--a part of a society with the power to alter what it dislikes about their government. You’ll find very few Americans who want to abolish the government, what the vast majority want is to keep what we have, but like a carburetor, just clean it out real good. Polls show as few as 9% approve of Congress, flip that stat around and it reads 90%+ disapprove of Congress, a statistic that’s been trending for a decade now.

When the institution established to represent the will of the People is disapproved by 90% of them, and going on ten years, clearly it’s time for the People to exercise their ultimate right and alter what they dislike. The only way for them to legally do that within our form of government is to propose and ratify an amendment to the Constitution.

You might be wondering, if the only way the People can alter how their government operates is to propose and ratify an amendment, then what’s the amendment going to be? But that’s the wrong question, because it’s impossible to answer. Does anyone know what 75% percent of Americans can agree to ratify today? We can all make guesses, but of course no one knows for sure.

Is there anyone here who is against the People exercising their right to find out what, if anything, 75% would agree to ratify? Do you think the People deserve to build consensus for amendments? If you’re against letting the People find out what they agree on, then you’re against the Constitution, because the spirit of it is that the People get to ratify changes when changes are needed.

Is there anyone here who has not heard of the provision found in the Constitution which allows for a federal convention of state delegates? Also known as a concon, or constitutional convention, but properly named the Article V Convention. Anyone who has never heard of it?

As you may or may not know, forty-nine states have cast hundreds of applications for the Article V Convention and one session of Congress after the next ignores them. Yet they’re still there, on record, tabled and awaiting proper disposal. In fact a leading national group has created an on-line database of PDFs of these state applications, direct from the Congressional Record.

Let me read you Article V: (read up to, “shall call a convention for proposing amendments”) You’ll notice Article V does not say “upon the application within five years,” or “upon the application for the same subject,”--or for the same subject within five years--the letter of the law is that as soon as 2/3 of the states cast an application for any reason Congress shall perform its governmental duty. There are no terms or conditions pertaining to state applications. In other words, a reading of Article V and review of the Congressional Record reveals a crime. Congress is illegally blocking a federal convention from taking place. According to the rule of law, this is not a political issue, this is a legal issue. If you want to argue a convention is not currently mandated you have stopped protecting and defending the Constitution because you are construing it so as to defeat its obvious aim--which is to allow the People to find common ground for amendments when elected officials stop working in their interests.

As a constitutional sheriff, I don’t care what your politics are. I may agree with them or I may not, but they’re not important to me in terms of my oath. I don’t care if you think a federal convention of state delegates is a good idea or a bad idea, because this is not a political issue--the 113th Congress is currently violating the Constitution by denying the Article V Convention from taking place, and denying the People their right to find common ground. This issue is not just one issue of many--it’s the issue every other issue hangs from, because while different groups may have ideas about what amendment will best fix Washington DC, no one’s going anywhere until we do as instructed and join together to deliberate proposals. Congress is not going to reign in its own power, nor is it going to properly check the executive or judicial branches--so this is a litmus test: it exposes just how sincere you are. Did we come here to beat our chest and declare how much we want to honor our oath to protect and defend, or are we going to actually do it by forcing the 113th Congress to obey the Constitution?

How would we do that? By declaring in a coordinated policy statement that we might arrest or detain any member of Congress we find in our county in order to inform them of their legal obligations. And we’ll tell the American People that the oath of office does not come with an instruction manual, and that our statement and actions are in line with the Constitution and the rule of law. And that by raising awareness in the People, we aim to protect the Constitution by coercing the 113th Congress to obey it, by properly disposing of all current state applications with a time and place for a federal convention of state delegates.

If you don't need any more persuading, and it’s clear to you why the Article V Convention is part of the Constitution, and that the People have a right to find their common ground, and you understand that corruption has made Congress incapable proposing suitable amendments, then please raise your hand.

(Ask those who raised their hands to join you at the microphone, and then get an open discussion going until those still sitting begin to realize what we're saying--best case the truth becomes obvious to all in attendance and we coordinate from there.)

Late Notes

Went out to Las Vegas this week to the Western States Sheriffs' Association, to talk with as many sheriffs as I could. This shot was taken off the 127, a circuitous route from Las Vegas to Baker, California. Some of the most beautiful desert vistas you might imagine. I look forward to going back there to spend a weekend or so, hiking and enjoying the feeling that long, sweeping views instill in a human being.

Late Poem

After Edna St. Vincent Millay
 
O Earth I cannot hold you close enough;
the winds born of these wide blue skies,
and the mists that roll and rise
upon your mountainsides this very day--
they rest sublime witness yet again
as the gaunt peak high above
waits with a view to the sea.

O Earth, I cannot get close enough
to your glory I’ve known and pursued for this long;
that which stirs a passion to make me burst
with joy and thanks--
my soul all but out of me in
seeking your embrace.

O Earth, let the sun burnish your oceans
and all of your numinous orb;
and let fall the burning leaves;
and let rise the various seeds;
and let call every thing,
tame, wild, or in-between.