Entitle, Entitled, Entitlement?


, , , , ,

The word “Entitle” used to mean: to give a title; “entitled” was: to be dignified thereby. @

When did the term “entitled” come to mean “deserving of the labor of another”? I’d guess… when “welfare” came to mean the same thing. @

In the truest sense, we are “entitled” by God, by nature, with life and liberty; “entitlements” on earth that are not absolute. @

Entitled, as being distinguished, or as having claim, presupposes merit, or honor, or Grace. @


Following are early American understandings of “entitle”. Interesting that the form “entitlement” is absent.

ENTI’TLE, v.t. [L. titulus, a title.]
~from Websters 1828 Dictionary. 

1. To give a title to; to give or prefix a name or appellation; as, to entitle a book, Commentaries on the laws of England.
2. To superscribe or prefix as a title. Hence as titles are evidences of claim or property, to give a claim to; to give a right to demand or receive. The labor of the servant entitles him to his wages. Milton is entitled to fame. Our best services do not entitle us to heaven.
3. To assign or appropriate by giving a title.
4. To qualify; to give a claim by the possession of suitable qualifications; as, an officer’s talents entitle him to command.
5. To dignify by a title or honorable appelation. In this sense, title is often used.
6. To ascribe.


Dignified or distinguished by a title; having a claim as, every good man is entitled to respect.

ENTITLE 1775 Definition

ENTI’TLE (v.t. from the French entituler)
~from John Ash’s 1775 Dictionary (imaged)

To give a claim to any thing, to grant as claimed by a title; to prefix a title; to dignify with a title.

Enti’tled (p. from entitle)

Having a title, dignified with a title, having a claim; with to: as, “He was entitled to any favour.”

Enti’tling (p. a. from entitle)

Giving a title, giving a claim.


“Somebody Needs to Make the Case For the Constitution”


, , ,

The folks at American Thinker have seen fit to publish an article I’ve written entitled:”Somebody Needs to Make the Case For the Constitution“. Though AT’s interest has everything to do with content and nothing to do with this author, I am of course pleased, grateful, and honored to be included among such fine company, if only for a time.

To the content of the article, I think the subject matter is clear enough, though it’s not so clear exactly who this “somebody” is. I don’t know, maybe it’s you… It is also somewhat ambiguous to some as to the reasoned urgency of “making the case”, but to the same this will be evident once the case is made.

Judging from some of the reactions to it thus far [on A.T.], I want to make a few quick comments: 1.) The article means not to imply that “nobody” is currently, vigorously making the case for the Constitution, 2.) some consideration as to whom, primarily, the case needs to be made, is in order, and 3.) being that the article is bit of a clarion call, it was hoped that it might encourage greater summaries in defense of the Constitution. ~tdv

Update 02.24.2013: Posted the complete article here

Continue reading

To my daughter, to my wonderful friend, on your birthday.


To my daughter, to my wonderful friend, on your birthday, I am reminded of my appreciation for you, of my respect for you, of my pride in you, of your wisdom beyond your years, of your beautifully independent and individual spirit, and of your treasured wit and laughter;  I am remembering the precision of my prophetic conclusion at the time of your birth, that you would grow to be of the finest among the human variety, such as you have;  I am mindful that there can be no other on earth than you, with whom I could ever find satisfaction in parallel conversations, and be rewarded by such unrelated simultaneous subject matters of discussion;  and I recall with utter clarity your loathing and disdain for the annoyingly long sentence, that it behooves me in honoring that, that I shall close, in the interest of brevity, save further redundant comma delineations, with these simple utterances: I love you, and happy birthday.  ~dad

Randoms: We the Foolish, At the Heart, Absurdity the Illustrator.


, , , , , , , ,

With so much law, with so broad the scope of govt, when does the phrase “law abiding citizen” become synonymous with “FOOL”? @

We spend much of our life’s labor buying a decent home. Now, each taxpayer’s portion of the national debt is just as much labor: $146,000 @

#ObamaFoeAmerica: Overwhelm, bankrupt, distract, intimidate, corrupt, divide… ~Thank God we have the Constitution to keep us focused. @

Every political thing boils down to the U.S. Constitution, and to the Constitutions of the States respectively. THIS is WHY they EXIST. @

When, to even the foolish it is evident, the destruction that leftist power was responsible for, will they be held responsible for it? @

Rush: “You want to stop abortions, require they be done with a gun.” @

Everybody’s entitled to their opinion, but nobody’s entitled to my opinion…  @

Myths make the truth look stupid. @

Note: The preceding random musings are mine, except as quoted/linked. ~tdv (@subconch) The @ symbols take you to the specific quotes on twitter if you care to RT, Favorite, or Reply.

Mental Health, and the Consequence of the National Crazy Registry


, , , , , , , ,

Anybody starting to see where this is headed?

Just caught this bit from Fox News Radio:
  “A new way of determining whether someone is suffering from mental illness- check out their Facebook profile.

As I alluded to on Jan. 10: “Guns… mental health… Equally outside the scope of the federal govt. They’ve NO business in our holsters, OR in our heads.”
…and on Jan. 14: “Again, careful this “mental health” talk. Who gets to DEFINE “sane enough” to own a firearm, or have rights for that matter? HHS? #backdoor #guncontrol”

Then, amongst the barrage of gun-hysteria-linked-“mental health”-hysteria, Obama puts out his 23 Executive Actions to Address Gun Violence, 01.16.13 (which is translated here):

#2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
#16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
#17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
#20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
#21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
#22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
#23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius(HHS) and Duncan(Education) on mental health.

All of this is clearly aimed at growing the list (see NICS below) of those prohibited from buying firearms (the gun-forbidden list), by way of growing the “these people are crazy” list. A neat little trick.

Break down the walls of privacy, encourage doctors to snoop and report, assure them they’ll get paid for the process, start the “dialogue” (code for propaganda), and then ultimately define crazy down. You know, lower the threshold for the honor of placement on the list.

But it’s deeper still. The bad guys don’t submit to background checks. They get their guns. Everybody knows this. So why else compile a national registry of “crazy” people? So that they can be controlled, limited, manipulated, blackmailed, and otherwise deprived of liberty, of course. If you don’t think such a database has the potential to be abused as a tool of oppression, both by government and citizen, then you are a naive child.

Consider as well, the consequence to those who are truly in need of mental health services who, upon learning of this growing national mental defective registry, might not seek help at all, so as to stay off the list. Think of that for a moment…


NICS, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (the gun-forbidden list) is maintained by the FBI, and contributed to by, among others, mental health institutions, psychiatrists, and family members, prohibiting those “adjudicated as mental defectives, et al. from buying guns (at least through a federally licensed dealer).

This Somebody That’s Going to Figure Me All Out


, , , , , ,

Just sitting here thinking how great it would be if somebody randomly reviewed the whole of my life, and then gave me the perfect idea as to what to do with the rest of my life.

Wouldn’t that be great?!

This somebody would see everything that I’ve ever done, every contribution I’ve made, every success small and great within my rucksack of jobs and hobbies and interests, every positive impression I’ve made at work or among family or friends, and see every great idea I ever had that I never wrote down.

This somebody would also see everything I’ve ever done wrong, every failure and error and blunder, every moment that I’d done someone wrong even when I didn’t realize it at the time, and see the dumbest ideas and thoughts that ever came to my mind or spewed from my mouth.

This is great!

Then, this somebody would randomly appear out of nowhere, absent any malice whatsoever, armed with every piece of data that is and ever was, of my heart and mind and hands, this somebody would extrapolate from my long life what exactly I am supposed to be when I grow up, after the fact, and tell me with prophetic hindsight that one thing that I was meant to do on earth that was mine alone to do.

Then I’d smack myself upside the head at the obviousness of what I’d struggled with since youth to figure out. I’d kick myself at the wasted (undisclosed) decades, which if you’ve ever seen someone try to kick themselves, I’d look ridiculous…

Time to get to work.

After this somebody schools me and takes their leave, I am left, aside from the elation at the new truth, I am left with the quick realization that this thing that I am to do, this thing that I’m made for and must make, will be an enormous undertaking. And that somebody didn’t provide the precise detail of my contribution, because then it wouldn’t be mine, of course.

So what did I need this somebody for, anyway? I mean, I’m going to do all the work, I’m the one that did all that I’ve done, I’m the one that built that database. Man, this somebody that I imagine randomly figuring it all out for me, can’t really be anybody but me, accompanied by maybe my God.

Yeah, that’ll be great when it happens, when me and maybe my God figure me all out, what I’m doing here, and I’m not waiting around for it. Best get to work, getting ready to really get to work.

This other somebody stuff… is a fairy tale. I thank God that such thoughts leave my mind as fast as they enter, leaving me much faster than I can think to write them down. And I pity those who cling to such fantasies, waiting on men, because there’s always another “this somebody” willing to take the advantage. Makes me wonder where those kind of ideas come from in the first place.


On the Infinite Personifications of Self-Government



The principle of self-government is not confined to its practice in our republic(s), wherein we as citizens delegate specific areas of authority to our fellow citizens.

No, self-government involves much more, not the least of which is the government of self. In our infinite environs, we direct, we influence and regulate, and even control and restrain both ourselves and those around us. We guide ourselves by an endless variety of written or traditional or self-evident systems of fundamental principles and beliefs, and by our conscience. As we parent and grandparent, as we minister, as we employ and administer, as we barter, as we coach and mentor, as we live we self-govern.

An embodiment of the blessings of liberty, we are an inestimable array of self-governments. We are the conductors of our own symphonies, even as we play in the band.

Government, as it is known, is a necessary but particular extension of our natural right to self-government, an unambiguous device. Whatever function it assumes beyond its particulars is nothing more than a pretentious man, inhabiting our homes, hovering over our places of worship, or implanting our fields of commerce, solely purposed with subjugating our will for his own, substituting self-government for an other-government, his arbitrary design.

We govern ourselves, or cease to be ourselves. We consent to our various governments, or we submit to them, and as we tolerate encroachments on any other, we invite it on ourselves.

~ my God is the governor of my soul, my soul then governs my heart, which feeds the mind that governs my industry. this, is the start. ~tdv

updated 01.27

The friendly response…


, ,

I’ve aged enough to know silence as a friendly response, to either my idiocy or my genius, and to accept the condition of either reality.

~tdv 01.20.2013 ~tweet

RE the Constitution; a Month’s Miscellany


, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

…from the abyss that is my twitter timeline, a filled void of never-again-to-be-seen-after-they-may-have-initially-been-seen, opinions-and-musings-and-references-and-pleasantries-shared-with-similarly-minded-patriotic-countrymen, what follows is a lunar cycle’s compendium of constitutionally-connected commentary :]

Court to King Obama: “There is no, ‘Trust us, changes are coming’ clause in the Constitution.” #obamacare #antiReligion ~tweet
Court Rebukes Obama Administration’s “Trust Us” Revision of the HHS Mandate

art.I,§6,c1: “… Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law…” Who makes “law”, again? the king, silly ~tweet
ref: Obama Orders Pay Raise for Biden, Members of Congress, Federal Workers

The year’s Perfect, let’s Riot~> Constitution 101: Changing Definitions ~tweet

Interesting: Webster’s 1828: “Liberty of the press… subject to PUNISHMENT for abusing the PRIVILEGE” ~tweet

Press “publishing what is mischievous to the public or injurious to individuals” was Punishable in 1828!? ?what law? ~tweet

Notice how FreePress thinks it’s better than FreeReligion & RightToBearArms? What a snob, that FreePress. Like it’s not on the same page. ~tweet

Respectfully, why would govt adhere to a Balanced Budget Amendment when govt ignores the Constitution as it is? @SenRandPaul #bba ~tweet

Ask Heritage: What Are The 10 Worst Regulations of 2012? …& Guess how many by Constitutional authority of Congress? ~tweet

Unreal: Mark Green on Hannity said “230 years, there was never an individual right to own a handgun. Scalia found it a few years ago” #LYHBT ~tweet

If liberals really think that there’s no right to own guns, then why don’t they just take them ALL from us? Where’s the issue? ~tweet

Why we’re here…~> “We already gave up on the Constitution” by Jim Antle, Daily Caller, 01.01.13, re: Seidman solution… ~tweet

Art. VI, cl.3: Congress et al “…shall be bound by #Oath or Affirmation, to support this #Constitution” ~DEMAND they reconcile their acts. ~tweet

#LowInformationVoterThoughts The U.S. Constitution (225) is outdated, yet the Communist Manifesto (164) is… not. ~tweet

Publius Huldah briefly on Fed #GunControl (shouldn’t be any), the #BBA (how to REALLY balance), and the con of the #ConCon ~tweet

The Constitutional Convention: The truth, and the danger.~> No, no Con-Con” by Henry Lamb ~tweet

Wonder if the people with such zeal to discard the Constitution ever considered where they’d be now if it were never created or ratified? ~tweet

Yes! These takers of property, of security, and thereby liberty, are “Imposters”, and illegitimate! #MolonLabe #guns ~tweet

Executive Orders have the force of law, ONLY as they implement (constitutionally pursuant) current law. They are NOT law, on their own.
Any order issued by the Executive that intends to legislate, or otherwise subvert the Constitution, is simply INVALID.
Obama has no more authority to ‘make’ gun laws than he has to, say, single-handedly outlaw Christianity. #MolonLabe #2ndAmd
~01.09.13 tweets: @ @ @
art.I,§.1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Guns… mental health… Equally outside the scope of the federal govt. They’ve NO business in our holsters, OR in our heads. ~tweet

It’s not about guns, it’s a validation of rightful Liberty. A great, great article.
Our 2nd Amendment Right: The Militia is the Key by Alan Keyes, 01.10.13

This 2nd Amendment fight, though CRITICAL to liberty, leaves me the sense that we’re being HERDED… away from something else. #justsayin ~tweet

Madison, Federalist No.49, par.10: (paraphrased) Public REASON alone ought control govt, as govt ought temper public PASSION. ~But govt incites passion, controls reason. ~tweet

Geraldo just said bad guys can get guns because of STATES RIGHTS!!! That must be NEXT on the list, huh? #amd2 #amd10… no matter ~tweet

Would YOU attend such an assembly in defense of our Gun Rights~> “Wishing For The 1%” ~jonolan #FirstForSecond ~tweet
~Gives new meaning to the phrase “Gun Show”…Amendments merge. ~tweet

MARK LEVIN: “I’m not into imperial presidents who act imperial and speak imperial and Obama forgets there’s a Constitution. Yes, he keeps telling us he won reelection. Congratulations, but guess what? The Constitution wasn’t up for election, it’s not up for a referendum. He has to comply with it, too.”

“The Constitution of the United States is a political contract between the States; a national compact.” ~from Webster’s 1828 definition of “compact” ~tweet

The federal government is not a party to the constitutional compact, but a function of it.  ~tweet

~Note: Except as quoted, the preceding thoughts are mine ~tdv (subconch)

Who Says it Can’t Happen Here?


, , , , , , , , , ,

Who says it cannot happen here? Who wants to give up enough freedom that we’re certain to find out? This our liberty, the assaults upon it, our defenses, the historical brutality of authoritarian govt… this is not a game, the United States is not a TV show.

From the comments on this article, which I shared in my last post, from the American Clarion, regarding our God-given right to keep and bear arms, the 2nd Amendment, the primary reason it ought not be infringed, and the utter lack of authority the federal government has to interfere with this right, Publius Huldah (the article’s author) had this reply to a commenter:

Liberals can’t think. Once one understands this, one sees that liberals never pose a challenge on intellectual grounds.

James Madison, in the 2nd half of Federalist Paper No. 46, speaks of the armed citizens (farmers, shopkeepers, blacksmiths, teachers, clerks, etc – i.e., the Militia) defending themselves from an overreaching federal government. If the federal government is using only slingshots, then the Militia needs only slingshots.

If the federal government is using fully automatic weapons and hollow points; then the Militia needs fully automatic weapons and hollow points.

If the federal government has fully automatic weapons and hollow points, but the people have nothing because the federal government has disarmed them, then democide is on its way. You can count on it.

We must not forget (although the liberals probably never knew this) that the leading cause of death in the 20th Century was….. civil governments murdering their own People. They did this by the hundreds and hundreds of millions.

That last bit sort of struck me in the chest, and reminded me of some research I found some months back. To expand on her point, I posted the following reply to hers, all this I share here because I find it especially instructive:


Here is a 1993 essay entitled “How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder?” by Rudolph J. Rummel, out of the University of Hawaii. “Democide” is defined there as non-war murder by government. The statistics are mind-blowing, and they are NOT JUST NUMBERS. I found no correlation to the armed status of these peoples, but it goes to Publius’ last point. It is stunning the level of ignorance to the inherent barbarity of an ideology, variants of which are openly championed today, when its dangers were seemingly self-evident some short 20 years ago. And in light of the unmistakable parallels to today, with respect to the pathways to these democides, it is more than questionable the intelligence of those who would ever seek to disarm themselves in lieu of govt. “security”.

R.J. Rummel:

Few would deny any longer that communism–Marxism-Leninism and its variants–meant in practice bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal gulags and forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and show trials, and genocide. It is also widely known that as a result millions of innocent people have been murdered in cold blood. Yet there has been virtually no concentrated statistical work on what this total might be.

Mr. Rummel estimates in this essay, numbers since revised upward, a midrange (conservative) total of 110 million murders by communist democide from 1900-1987, and at the higher end estimates 260 Million Murders. By comparison, there were 38 million battle-dead in all wars (int’l & domestic) of the same period. The Soviet Union alone (midrange) murdered 62 million, and China (PRC) 35 million.


How can we understand all this killing by communists? It is the marriage of an absolutist ideology with the absolute power. Communists believed that they knew the truth, absolutely. They believed that they knew through Marxism what would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness. And they believed that power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, must be used to tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and rebuild society and culture to realize this utopia. Nothing must stand in the way of its achievement. Government–the Communist Party–was thus above any law. All institutions, cultural norms, traditions, and sentiments were expendable. And the people were as though lumber and bricks, to be used in building the new world.

Constructing this utopia was seen as though a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism, and inequality. And for the greater good, as in a real war, people are killed. And thus this war for the communist utopia had its necessary enemy casualties, the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, wreckers, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, rich, landlords, and noncombatants that unfortunately got caught in the battle.


Please visit the above thread for more informative commentary. And note that P.H. also has this article up on her site now, here, with more discussion.