Greetings, Gentle Reader:

Do you remember what a conservator is? It is a person who is assigned to protect the interests of someone who is incapable of caring for his own affairs. If someone is too young, or is incapable for some reason, a conservator is given the job of conserving his or her assets, which means protecting them.

At least that is what it meant before we found out that there was a question as to the meaning of the word "is." As in, "It all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is." We also found that we didn’t know the meaning of the word "alone." Well, now we can add the word "conservator" to that list of words we don’t understand. At this stage, it all depends on what the meaning of the word "conservator" is.

Unfortunately, it no longer means what it used to mean. Now it means the person who is assigned by the court to sign away the rights of someone who refuses to sign away his own rights.

Remember the problem Diana Luppi was having with the Forest Service? They were demanding that she sign a special-use authorization so she could drive on the access road that led to her driveway. Problem was, she already had a right of access that was superior to the one they wanted her to sign. Hers had been secured by a patent that the first owner of the property had obtained from the federal government way back before the Forest Service even existed.

That is a minor detail; the Forest Service has taken over the road, although it is actually a county road owned by Archuleta County. The paperwork says it is a county road, and the county is responsible for its upkeep, but the Forest Service has taken the road and forced the owners to sign away their rights.

Miss Luppi refused to sign away her rights; she was given a ticket for driving on the road without the special permit, even though she had paid them money for the upkeep. (That seemed legitimate to her).

She was tried and convicted of driving on the road without authorization; tried and convicted without benefit of counsel. She was put on probation and ordered to sign the authorization by the court, under penalty of incarceration; she wouldn’t sign; the court decided it had better appoint an attorney. He was appointed by the court, and it was his job to get her to sign the paper, but she still refused.

She is being charged with violating her probation, because she was ordered to sign away her rights as a condition of probation and she won’t do it. The judge said the authorization was going to be signed, even if she had to appoint a conservator to do it. Now the court is, indeed, going to appoint a conservator for Miss Luppi, whose specific job will be to sign that special-use authorization. Miss Luppi is not being assigned a conservator because she is incompetent; the court is just indulging in tyranny.

Does that surprise any of us? It shouldn’t after seven years of watching Clinton thumb his nose at the Constitution, while signing hundreds of executive orders that deprive the citizens of their Constitutional rights.

Congress could stop this President from ruling by executive order, but it has neither the backbone nor the votes to do it. And why doesn’t it have the votes? Because too many of our citizens really don’t mind being ruled by a king.

They don’t value the Constitution; they have no idea what is says or even that it was designed to protect them from being ruled by a lawless president, such as Clinton. Besides, they don’t see anything wrong with his activities, so why should they try to stop him?

Remember the saying that came out of Europe after Hitler’s day? It went something like this: "When they came for the Gypsies, I didn’t object, because I wasn’t a Gypsy. When they came for the Jews, I didn’t object, because I wasn’t a Jew. When they came for the Christians, I didn’t object, because I wasn’t a Christian. By the time they came for me, there wasn’t anyone left to object."

That is where we are in this country. The only ones fighting for freedom are those whose ox has been gored. Miss Luppi’s ox has been gored, but few of her fellow citizens are objecting, because the government hasn’t gored their ox...yet.

Remember that captivity can be forced on a people; all it takes is a bigger army. But freedom can never be forced on a nation, because the people throw it away faster than it can be installed. Freedom can only exist with a people who want it, who value it and are willing to fight for it. It can never continue to exist in a society where the people see it as a threat to their physical or financial security and comfort.

Neither can it exist if those who despise it are more vigorous and diligent than those who desire it. Freedom cannot continue to exist in a lukewarm environment. Either it burns fiercely in the breasts of a people, or it sputters and dies for lack of nourishment.

News announcers and government people ask repeatedly how much freedom our people are willing to sacrifice in order to be safe, especially in respect to terrorism. People who value their freedom say, "very little." Those who are globalists see it differently, because they have little use for our national sovereignty and are not concerned for our freedoms. They have this notion that everyone will be free as soon as the U.N. takes over. Or at least, "as freedas they need to be," according to a globalist’s way of thinking.

Unfortunately, our Constitution can only protect a people who want to be protected. It has no power to protect people who either don’t value freedom or see no need for protection. If the citizens of this country do not take immediate steps to reclaim the power Clinton has stolen, unconstitutionally, we will lose most of our freedoms.