Why People Piss Me Off

If there is one belief that really pisses me off it would be the belief that some people have that they are entitled to something without having earned it. In fact, if I had my way I’d make an entitlement mentality a criminal offense; punishable by life in prison without the chance of parole. It seems that no matter where I go, or what I’m doing, I’m exposed to people who believe that they are entitled to something without having earned it; and it’s beginning to wear away at my ability to restrain my anger over it.

For instance, when I go to work I encounter people who think that just showing up for work every day entitles them to a paycheck; having to actually work for that pay is completely foreign to them. Now I don’t know if this is due to the fact that they are flat out lazy or if it is due to the fact that they have been taught to believe that they don’t have to work to earn their pay; but whichever it is, some people simply refuse to do the job that is expected of them, yet they sure as hell think they are entitled to that paycheck every week.

My job does not take a PhD to perform; it simply requires a certain degree of physical strength, a bit of commons sense, and a willingness to keep busy. Unfortunately, many of the people hired by my company are lacking in two of these pre-requisites; common sense and a willingness to keep busy. Some of these people think that simply because they are present on the premises, and in the general vicinity of their assigned work area, that that alone entitles them to a paycheck; and job performance standards can go to hell.

I was raised to believe that if you want an honest day’s pay you need to put in an honest day’s work to earn it. Yet a great many people where I work must think that if they are to be expected to work they should be paid extra; above and beyond their regular pay scale.

That is just one thing that pisses me off about some people. Unfortunately, there are more things about them that anger me.

What about this belief that some people have that society owes them a living, a home, an education, or a form of sustenance; that by the virtue of their gracing us with their presence on this planet that they are entitled to these things? I hate to burst your bubble people, but the ONLY thing you are entitled to is the chance to obtain these things; society doesn’t OWE YOU a damned thing!

I am the one who goes to work every day and gives 100% towards earning my pay; me, not you. You are not entitled to one red cent of my pay unless I decide to be charitable and give it to you. But you sugarplums have this belief that since society owes you a life that the reason government exists is to ensure that you achieve success; riches, and a comfortable lifestyle. Well excuse me, but you can kiss my ass! I wasn’t handed anything, I earned every single thing I own; and if I can do it, so can you.

Recently California passed a law which will eventually raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour; simply because there are those in this State who believe they are entitled to a ‘living wage.’ I guess it is just too much to ask of them that they put forth some effort to educate themselves; to learn a skill that is worthy of a decent paycheck. So instead they demand that their lawmakers pass a law forcing employers to pay them more than their skill set deserves. It doesn’t seem to bother these snowflakes that the cost of paying them $15 per hour will get passed on to those who end up utilizing the services their employer provides, or the cost of a burger at your favorite fast food joint will go up to pay for your worthless ass; so long as you are provided what you think you are entitled to.

Well excuse me for thinking that if you want a decent salary you should pull yourself away from your Facebook, your iPhones, your sports and learn a skill that is worthy of a decent salary. Are you aware that Mike Rowe, the same Mike Rowe who starred on the TV show Dirty Jobs, has a program where he provides the funding for people who are willing to learn a skill that is demand, and pays a good wage? The only requirement is that you be willing to relocate to where the work is in demand, and that you are expected to actually work to earn the pay you get.

Oh, but that is simply too much to ask; people want to be able to flip burgers and support their family on a job that was never intended to be a CAREER. So instead of seeking to improve themselves, they demand that government pass a law to improve their status in life for them. What a bunch of losers!!!

Then of course there is this insane belief people have that their opinion is entitled to respect; even when it is not supported by any facts or evidence. People actually get offended when someone contradicts their opinion with facts and evidence; resorting to name calling and insults. Hell, I have been turned in numerous times at work simply because I have spoken, or written truths that people simply don’t want to hear.

What does it say about your character or integrity when you are unwilling to accept evidence that contradicts your beliefs? I’m sorry if I’m blunt, but I say it makes you an intellectual coward. Of all the traits that people exhibit, this belief that their opinions are entitled to consideration without any supporting evidence angers me more than all the others combined.

People think that they are entitled to vote; to elect people to office who will then turn around and pass laws that affect me and my rights. Yet at the same time these people don’t think that they should be required to understand how our system of government was supposed to work. Would you let a child drive your car without knowing the basics of motor vehicle operation or the rules of the road? Would you let a plumber perform open heart surgery on you? If not, then why should people be allowed to participate in choosing who fills the various seats of power within our government if the voter does not understand how that system of government was designed to work; or care about the limits the document which established our government imposes upon it?

Not only do people believe that their opinions are entitled to respect, they are often hypocritical in their opinions. Take for instance the liberal left’s steadfast belief that it is a woman’s right to terminate the life growing insider her womb; yet these same people believe that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. Uh, does double standards mean anything to these ass-clowns? And just to make sure the conservative right who support Donald Trump don’t feel left out, what about your belief that America has the right to protect its borders, but have no qualms about our military invading other countries and bombing them back into the Stone Age. Yet you hypocrites call those who attack our fighting men and women terrorists, and you say I am unpatriotic because I say they have every right to defend their country against ANY foreign invaders…even when those foreign invaders are US soldiers.

I bet if China or Russia were to invade the US that there would be freedom fighters, ala the type found in the movie Red Dawn, who would be planting IED’s (improvised explosive devices) to fight them. Yet when Iraqis or Afghani’s do that to fight against our fighting men and women who have invaded their country we call them terrorists.

Let us not forget the fact that there are those who are calling for the deprivation of the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms; just so that they can feel safe and free from the fear of becoming a victim. Yet what do they do when they feel threatened or in danger; they call people with guns to come protect them. But let someone with an ounce of self-reliance and personal responsibility defend their home or property with a gun and they are lambasted by the public as a vigilante; someone who has taken the law into their own hands.

Well excuse me, if you had but an ounce of intelligence you would know that the first law of nature is the law of self-preservation; that any species, be it man or animal, has the right to defend both their life and their property. Yet you dimwits call us criminals and vigilantes, and the media portrays us as murderers when we use deadly force to defend ourselves and our property. You say we have taken the life of an innocent person when we should have just called the police and let them handle it. Well, if they were so innocent, why were they breaking into my home or attempting to rob me of my possessions?

Okay people, can we all say it together…H Y P O C R I S Y!!!

Yet people wonder why I rarely smile anymore. I’ll tell you why, it is because I am drowning in an ocean of stupidity and ignorance; and no matter how loudly I scream, or how much evidence I provide, people just won’t accept the fact that their beliefs and opinions, aren’t entitled to squat unless they can be supported by facts and evidence.

I am more than willing to debate people; so long as they provide facts to support their position and not emotional taglines and feel good about themselves sentiments. I am even man enough to accept when I am wrong if provided with enough evidence to convince me of my errors…are you?
Well there you have it. You wanted to know why I’m so pissed off all the time; now I have told you.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The Ball Is In Your Court

I have always been, and I suppose I will always be a rebel. I rebelled against my parent’s authority, I rebelled against the standards imposed upon me while serving in the military, and I continue to push the boundaries of company policy at work by bringing articles that many find offensive and disagreeable. I suppose it is just part of my DNA to wave the middle finger at anyone who attempts to dictate how I should live my life.

But you wanna know something? I bet if you were to look back through history you will find that many of the changes that we accept as commonplace today were brought about by people like me; people who rebelled against what was commonly accepted belief. Jesus was crucified for upsetting the status quo. Galileo was accused of heresy for proposing that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Our Founding Fathers upset the status quo when they revolted against established authority; believing that people did not exist to serve their government, that governments exist to serve the people.

It is a sad commentary on both the people and their educational system that many graduate from high school not knowing who our Founders fought against, or why they fought to gain their independence. There is a guy named Mark Dice who does these YouTube videos where he goes out and asks people questions about American politics and American History. The answers he gets are absolutely mind boggling.

For instance, on July 4th a few years back he asked this one young man the following, “What country famously broke away from England to start their own country in the late 1700’s?” In answer to his question the man said, “I have no idea man, I don’t know.”

Then he asked an older woman, “What are we celebrating on the 4th of July?” To which she replied, “Our independence.” Then he asked her to be, “A little more specific.” Then she said, “It’s the day that we overtook the South.”

I have no idea if these answers are due to the fact that most of the people he interviews are from Southern California, of if this is a symptom of nationwide ignorance, but I find it unfathomable that these people can be so ignorant, yet think that they are informed enough about the founding of their country to make an intelligent decision at the voting booth.

I wonder how many people realize that the American Revolution and the War for Independence were two distinctly different events? I am more inclined to believe, as did John Adams when he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1815, that the revolution itself “…was in the minds of the people, and this was effected … before a single drop of blood was shed.”

The Revolution itself was a change in the mindset that government is absolute and arbitrary to the belief that government should exist to serve the people and protect their rights. The war itself was fought because government resisted these ideological changes and tried to maintain the status quo and its authority over a people who sought to be free of its oppressive authority.

I have heard it asked, and I have asked myself, what side would most Americans take if they were suddenly transported back in time to 1776? Would they align themselves with the patriots who rebelled against established authority, or would they be Loyalists who sought to remain under British rule? Would they fight to maintain a system of government that provided them with comfort and security, or would they take up arms to defend their liberty?

After all, their government did protect them – it had recently done so when it sent an army to keep them safe in the French and Indian War. All it asked in return was a few paltry taxes to help pay for the expense of keeping them safe; kind of like the taxes we are asked to pay for all the government services we receive today. So what were those blasted patriots griping about?

If you were to read the Declaration of Independence you would not find a single mention of the King not providing benefits or security for his people in the Colonies. What you would find is a long list of encroachments upon their liberty and their fundamental rights as human beings.

We call the Revolution the War for Independence, and we now celebrate July 4th as Independence Day but it would be more aptly titled if we called it Liberty Day or the War for Liberty; for that is what they ultimately sought. Independence was simply the last resort for a people who had tried every other means of obtaining that one precious commodity; liberty.

You have to understand, at some point in human history there must have been a time when government simply did not exist. I don’t know if you understand the implications of that, but let me explain them to you. First of all, it means that any government, be it a Republican form, a democracy, or a dictatorship, is a creation of man. But more importantly, prior to the establishment of the very first form of government mankind lived in a state of perfect freedom.

Locke calls this a state of nature in which men are in “… a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.”

That is what we call liberty, and each of us has an equal right to it so long as in exercising it we do not prohibit others from enjoying the same rights as we do. Therefore, for any government to be just it must seek to ensure that the people it governs enjoy the most liberty possible, while at the same time maintaining order and securing that liberty for all those it governs. Any government that does not do that is unjust, and should be opposed. It’s as James Wilson wrote in 1791, “Government … should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.”

So I suppose we should all be asking ourselves now, for what purpose was our system of government established; was it to secure liberty, or was it to destroy it? The only real way to know for sure is to study both the creation of our system of government and then the ensuing arguments between those who supported its adoption and those who opposed it.

I’m going to tell you right now, you aren’t taught these things in school. Hell, I was barely taught how what our Constitution and Bill of Rights said, let alone the why they were established or the restrictions they imposed upon our government. So, if you want this information you are going to have to do as I did; research it for yourself.

The first step of this process would be to study the things proposed during the convention which ultimately produced the Constitution. Unfortunately, the only record we have of those proceedings are Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention. I say unfortunately because they were not released until Madison’s death, and I fear he probably edited them; particularly as it pertains to his own comments so as to make himself appear in a good light for posterity. Yet they still shed a lot of light on the various plans and ideas the delegates had for a system of government for America. They are also a base point for comparing later comments and arguments against, and they can show you that although the Constitution may have been written a certain way, one implemented those inside the government it created sought to subvert the power reserved to the people and the States and assume many undelegated powers…which is exactly what they had proposed during the convention.

The next step in your education would be to study the ensuing argument over whether to adopt or reject the plan the Convention of 1787 gave to the States for their consideration. On this subject there is plenty of reference material. First there are the Federalist Papers; 85 essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, in support of the Constitution. On the other hand there are over 150 documents from those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. Some of them were written under pseudonyms; such as Cato, Centinel, The Federal Farmer and Brutus, while others were public speeches given by men like Patrick Henry and George Mason.

It is only by doing this that you can begin to get an idea of the dangers the proposed Constitution posed to State Sovereignty and to the liberty of the people. You simply cannot view government from the perspective of one who has lived under tyranny all their life; you must view it from the perspective of those who were deciding whether or not to change their system from a Confederation of sovereign states to one in which you have a much stronger centralized government. If you cannot view it from that perspective you are wasting your time studying this period of American History.

One thing you have to understand, those who supported ratification of the Constitution would do and say almost anything, even lie, to get it ratified. They promised all manner of things just to calm the fears of those who felt threatened by the system they were proposing. Unfortunately, people believed them; while many of the predictions of those who opposed the Constitution have proven to be true.

For instance, in Federalist 45 James Madison promised, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Does that even remotely sound like the separation between federal and state authority we accept and tolerate today? I couldn’t even begin to list all the federal agencies which intrude upon either State authority or deprive you of your liberty, but I can name a few of them. What about the DEA, the FBI, the BATF, the Bureau of Land Management, the DHS, the TSA, so on and so forth; all of whom exert authority within the State, in direct contradiction to what Madison promised would be the limits to federal authority.

Then there is the forgotten fact that a President has absolutely no lawmaking authority; that is the domain of the Congress. Yet we have people voting for presidential candidates based upon all the promises they make during the run up to a presidential election. If people really want these things done, why don’t they focus their attention upon the body in government that has the authority to enact law, not some elected administrator or glorified CEO?

The sad truth is that the people of this country enter their children into the public fool system with the hope that they will be properly educated; taught how to think. What is happening is that our children, (and probably most of us as well) are being indoctrinated; taught what to think, not how to think. That is the only explanation I have for why mountains of evidence have absolutely no effect on changing the opinions of people…they simply have not been taught how to process information and form intelligent opinions based upon that information.

I’ll admit, there were times in my own personal journey for knowledge that I encountered information that caused me to pause and ask myself if I wanted to continue. I learned things which threatened my entire belief system; but I was the one who started this journey and I would have considered myself a coward if I just gave up because the things I learned made me uncomfortable. Regardless, if you choose to go down this path there will be times when you too discover things that make you want to quit. If that happens you will have a choice to make; you can either swallow the blue pill and go on believing whatever you want to believe, or you can take the red pill and see how far the web of deceit you have been fed extends.

Regardless of which choice you make as an individual the charade that we have a constitutional form of government will continue; and there will be those who believe it. Yet it is all a charade, with all manner of tools being utilized to keep people from seeing the truth.

First off people are told of how great our democratic process is; how we get to elect candidates to fill the various offices created by our Constitution. That would be all well and good if the people we elected stuck to the few limited powers originally granted them and left our liberty alone.

Then we are told that the duty of a patriotic American is to obey the law; regardless of whether those laws violate our rights or oppress us. Of course the government has created all manner of agencies whose sole purpose is to create these laws, then enforce them upon the people…some of which I already mentioned a few paragraphs ago.

Your patriotism is also played against you by questioning it if you do not support the troops or law enforcement; even though they are being used to further the American empire or deprive you of your rights. Now I’m not saying cops and our servicemen are evil; I’m only stating that they are probably just as ignorant as to the reason government should exist and the powers that were given it. They are just pawns being used by the government to further its agenda. They probably have/had good intentions when choosing their career paths, but their ignorance blinds them to the fact that they are working for tyrants.

And I won’t even begin to discuss the United Nations and how it is trying to impose its vision of a world government upon America through its Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development Plan. They, in no way, represent either you or I; and let me tell you something, if I see UN troops marching down my street I’m opening fire upon them. It’s as simple as that.

Next, they keep us divided amongst ourselves by offering up the choice of candidates between the two political parties; each of which has a distinctly different vision for the direction America should take. Unfortunately, neither party has a vision towards a more limited government with more freedom for the people it represents. All they really seek is control of an apparatus which has gone from servant to slave master.

And finally, they maintain control over us by depriving us of the truth. The media, as many believe now, is fabricated and scripted news; not the truth about events. On top of that, our schools do not tell us the whole story, only the government’s version of the story. Orwell would be proud, as our school systems are the living embodiment of his Ministry of Truth in his novel 1984.

As I have mentioned, our schools do not teach our children to research and analyze data, they teach them what they should think; thereby becoming more akin to indoctrination centers than centers for education. What boggles my mind is why otherwise intelligent people cannot see the truth once it is presented to them. It’s almost as if the section of their brain responsible for critical thought has been switched off.

I hear all this talk about how government should ensure that we are all equal in all things and I want to puke. There is a guy named Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who was a Russian born historian and novelist who was critical about the Soviet government in Russia. Solzhenitsyn once said this about equality, “Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”

The only equality our government was established to ensure was the equality of rights and of liberty; that and nothing more. To explain this, allow me to quote Ben Franklin, “The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” But to achieve happiness means work, and some people, as I have found, are averse to working for anything; they want success or riches handed to them on a silver platter.

That isn’t liberty, at least not according to the definition I am familiar with; especially when the cost of providing comfort and security to others comes at the price of taxing me, or depriving me of my rights.

Maybe liberty has all but died in America, maybe Emma Goldman was right when she said, “Most human beings only think they want freedom. In truth they yearn for the bondage of social order, rigid laws, materialism. The only freedom man really wants, is the freedom to become comfortable.”

But you know what, our country wasn’t founded by people who sought comfort and security, it was founded by people who sought liberty. After all, Patrick Henry is probably only known because he uttered the following words, “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

It’s up to you. you can keep on participating in your own enslavement, [voting], or even ignore the fact that you are a slave, that’s your choice. You can call me a radical if you want because I stand for the same things those who sought their independence from a tyrant stood for. You can call me whatever you want, just know this, I will stand for liberty until they day they put me in the ground. However, until that day comes, I will continue to try and break you of your conditioning; knowing full well that until I succeed you are as much a part of the problem as is our government.

Which is just one more reason I love the first Matrix film; for there is a scene in it which is best understood by the following quote from Morpheus:

“The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.”

Like I said at the beginning, I have always been a rebel, so I think you know what position I take on this. The question is, what position are you going to take? Are you going to continue to be a slave to system that seeks to control and enslave you, or are you going to free your mind and seek out the truth?

The ball is now in your court…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Sick To My Damn Stomach

The other day I was engaged in an interesting debate on Facebook over the question of: Has the Constitution and Bill of Rights failed the people or have the people failed the ideals expressed in those documents? It was so interesting that my mind wouldn’t let go of the subject; it kept tossing ideas around and coming up with alternative ways in which I could have answered questions posed to me. It was during this process that the idea for what you are about to read began.

During the debate I stated that it was my belief that the answer to the question was a little bit of both; the Constitution and Bill of Rights failed the people and the people failed the ideals expressed in those documents. I know that sounds like typical doublespeak to avoid giving a definite answer, but if you keep reading I think I will be able to explain why I said that.

First of all, there are two periods of American History that absolutely fascinate me; the period which saw our nation gain its independence and establish its own system of government, and the period leading up to, including, and following the Civil War. As it pertains to the establishment of our system of government I find Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention and the writings of the anti-Federalists; authors like Cato, Centinel, Brutus, the Federal Farmer, John De Witt, and Patrick Henry to be particularly interesting.

Now you might say, “Why not just read the Constitution and be done with it?” I suppose that is a valid question, so allow me to provide an answer. While I could do that, I like to read the arguments that took place both during the process which produced the finished document, and the resulting argument over whether to accept or reject the plan proposed by the Philadelphia Convention. Doing that provides me with much more insight into the thoughts of those who sought to shape our system of government into their vision of what a government should be, and the warnings of those who sought to prevent this system of government from being implemented.

Had I not studied these documents I would probably have been of the opinion that there is not a damned thing wrong with our Constitution, or in this country for that matter. But, having read them I realize that our Constitution isn’t the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that our government certainly doesn’t adhere to the few limits it does impose upon it. Now that is primarily due to the fact that people, more often than not, choose to vote for candidates according to their party loyalty than they do vote for candidates who campaign on a purely constitutional platform; which means that, yes, the people have failed the Constitution.

Had the people, (and this goes way back in our history), been kept informed, and adhered to the limits the Constitution imposes upon our government, I believe that more than half the problems we face today as a country would not exist. But, because the voters themselves do not know, or care, what the Constitution says, they elect candidates who have no intention, or desire, to support and defend it. It is a vicious cycle that repeats itself every election cycle and won’t stop until the people take the time to learn what the drafters of the Constitution intended when they wrote it.

So, as Lysander Spooner so aptly said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorizes such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” I could almost stop right there, saying that is how I feel about our system of government, and the document that established it…but I won’t.

You see, even though the Constitution outlined a fundamentally sound system of government – in theory, the problem is that it was the creation of a group of men who held differing views on what government should look like and what powers it should hold. I think Ben Franklin explained it best when he said, “For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does…” (Source: Franklins Final Address to the Constitutional Convention)

But, could that, in and of itself, have been the fatal flaw in the whole process; the willingness to settle for something not quite perfect just so they could have a system of government to call their own? Not to be an armchair quarterback or a back seat driver, but I have over 150 documents from authors who expressed their concerns over what would happen if the system of government outlined by the Constitution was put into operation.

There were many concerns expressed by these patriots who opposed the Constitution, but the underlying theme that can be found in most of their writings is that the Constitution created a consolidation of the States into a Union under a strong centralized government.

One of the questions I was asked by a person saying we failed the Constitution was, what is a Republic. Simply stated a Republic is a system in which the ultimate power in government is held by the people; which is then exercised by elective representatives. One could also add, ‘according to the rule of law’ as well.

At the time I answered I was giving the textbook definition; something that could have been found had one simply Googled the word Republic. Later I did some research of my own and found this, taken from Vattel’s Law of Nations, “Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.”

Now that might seem a bit complicated, so let me endeavor to explain it a bit more. At the end of the Revolution there was not a United States of America; at least not as we know it today. At that point in our history each State was sovereign and independent from the others, with a Congress having been established to act as sort of an intermediary for the common needs and security of them all.

This is what is known as a Confederation, or a federal form of government; where the States retain a majority of the sovereign power; giving only a few delegated powers to the central government. At the same time, each State had already established a republican form of government for themselves by their having written constitutions, framing a system of government that was duly ratified by the inhabitants of each State.

In essence, at the end of the Revolution we had 13 independent republics in America which had a central government whose authority extended only to the States as political entities; while the States held all the power over the lives and liberty of the people.

One of the primary concerns of the anti-Federalists was: Did the Constitution do away with the status quo and create a consolidation of the States into a single, indivisible Union; or Republic, or did the States still retain all powers which were not expressly given; allowing the government to intrude into and interfere with the lives and liberties of the people?

In a speech opposing ratification of the Constitution, Patrick Henry expressed those exact sentiments as follows, “I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and of America may depend on this: Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America.”

You see, the people had ALREADY established republics by their having created their own State Legislatures, so why would they need to create another Republic which would govern them all? The purpose for which the delegates were sent to Philadelphia was so that they could come up with suggestions for amendments to make the existing Confederation Government adequate for the needs of the country; not to toss the existing form of government in the trash heap and replace it with one of their creation.

If the powers given to this new form of government were to be exercised primarily upon the States, then why did the drafters of the Constitution demand that it be ratified by the voice of the people; as it was the States whose authority would be further restricted, or usurped, by the creation of this new form of government. However, if this new system of government was, in fact, a consolidation and a diminishing of the sovereignty of the States, then it would make sense that the people must give their consent to it.

Yet, in Federalist 45 James Madison attempted to ensure the people that the States would retain their authority over the lives and liberties of the people by saying, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

I think if you were to be honest with yourself, then you will be forced to admit that the Constitution ended up creating a system of government that has not respected the boundaries which separate its authority from that which was supposed to be reserved to the States.

This intrusion upon State sovereignty is even more apparent when one looks at the Bill of Rights. There is a huge misconception that the Bill of Rights applies to the States as well as the federal government; which simply is not true.

What does the Bill of Rights do? Now some of you may answer, “It protects certain rights against governmental interference.” That is only partially true; for you leave out which government it protects them from. The Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution which created our federal government; not the constitutions which framed the various State governments. Therefore, technically they only apply to the federal government. Yet an argument can also be made that, since the Constitution itself is the Supreme Law of the land, any amendment to it could be implied to apply to the States as well.

But to keep things simple, let’s just say that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government. How is it then that the government can dictate what kind of guns private citizens may own; how is it that the Supreme Court, (which is PART of the federal government) decide whether a State may display the Ten Commandments, or that children be prohibited from praying in school; how is it that the federal government can violate the 4th Amendment by spying upon the private conversations of every man, woman and child in this country…just to keep us safe from terrorism?

I could go on and on, listing a whole list of things the federal government has done which are not among the powers listed in Article 1, Section 8 as those powers given to Congress; which in case you have forgotten, is the lawmaking body of our government; not the President as so many seem to think.
This has all been done because of the concept of implied powers; something introduced while George Washington was President. That occurred because the Constitution itself did not provide specific enough limitations upon the powers it was granting government; leaving loopholes by which government has expanded its power well beyond those originally intended.

So, if that is true, then the Constitution itself failed the people as it did not provide sufficient means for the people to resist the encroaching powers of government and to ward off tyranny and oppression.

Now you might say, but we can vote them out of office; but is that punishing them? When we violate the law we are either fined or sentenced to jail time for our having violated the laws enacted by government. When is the last time you recall hearing an elected official being fined or jailed for violating the Constitution? I’ll give you a minute to think about it.

I can’t recall a single instance of it; and that includes the Watergate Scandal which led to the resignation of Richard Nixon. You see, Nixon never served a day in jail, nor was he fined for his crimes. Impeachment is not punishment, it is merely removal from office.

Returning to Patrick Henry and his opposition to the Constitution, we see that he made two important statements regarding this flaw in the Constitution. On June 5, 1788 Henry stated, “The Honorable Gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our Government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

Then on June 7th Henry rose up again and said, “Where is the responsibility — that leading principle in the British government? In that government a punishment, certain and inevitable, is provided: But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law — for there is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.”

I defy anyone to sit down and actually read the Constitution, and then provide me with the Article and Clause which grants any of us the authority to arrest and charge any of our elected officials for the crime of violating the Constitution. Such a clause simply does not exist within that document; and that is why I say that the Constitution failed the people; because it did not provide them the means to oppose a government that no longer adheres to any kind of limits upon their power and authority.

It took me a long time to accept this, but the Constitution isn’t all that it is cracked up to be. However, once I came to accept that, it opened my mind to the realization that voting is not the answer to our country’s problems; not that there is an answer when the majority of the people still place their faith and trust in lawmakers who refuse to adhere to the limits imposed upon their power.

But, as one who has more than a rudimentary understanding of how their system of government was supposed to work, and the reasons for which certain rights were protected by Constitutional Amendment, I cannot consent to a government that refuses to do the job it was established to do; that and NOTHING MORE!!!

I don’t care which party is in control of our government, I only care whether the party that is in control adheres to the Constitutional limitations imposed upon them and seeks to protect and defend my rights…that and nothing more. If government does not do this, then I revoke my consent to being governed by it.

Sure, I may obey the laws they impose upon me just to stay out of prison, but I do so in protest and I certainly do not support it simply because it is run by the person I voted for.

And that is why I quoted Lysander Spooner earlier, and why I will quote him again right now, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorizes such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

I honestly cannot say what would have happened had the Constitution been rejected by the people and the Confederation continued on as it was. I can only say that the government the Constitution outlined and established has proven to be far worse than the one our Founders fought a war to free themselves from; of that much I am absolutely certain.

My question for you is; why do you support it or ignore the fact that your government no longer resembles or represents the ideals and beliefs which led our Founders to seek their independence from a tyrant. Why do you so meekly submit to tyranny and oppression today? Is there not a drop of patriotic blood in your bodies?

If there was, you would certainly not be supporting the crooks who seek your vote. If there was you’d be marching upon our nation’s capital, with guns in hand and 12 foot lengths of rope so you could string them up from the lamp posts.

All I see is a nation of sheep who meekly obey the commands of their masters. What has become of the land of the free and the home of the brave? LaVoy Finicum was brave and he was gunned down in cold blood; with the media and the people calling him an extremist. Edward Snowden was brave, and the people called him a traitor; forcing him into exile in Russia.

I think were Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Samuel Adams alive today they would either have fled the country, or be serving time in Guantanamo Bay as domestic terrorists. That’s because the people of this country no longer care about limited government or individual liberty; all they care about is comfort and security; and which party can best provide it for them.

And it makes me sick to my stomach to watch…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

I Choose Knowledge Over Indoctrination (What About You?)

I know I’ve spoken of this before, but the human brain is an amazing organ. It consists of a mix of water and fatty tissue. Yet within that gelatinous mass there are over 100 billion neurons that gather and transmit signals. Within each human brain is the recollection of every event that shaped that person’s life; both knowledge and personal experiences.

When a person is born their brain is basically empty, aside from the basic operating system which performs the functions of breathing, eating, sleeping, and ridding the body of waste; as well as the stored memories from the time spent in the womb.

It is what we learn in life; either through the educational process or by personal experiences that shape us into the people we grow up to be as adults. What we put into our brains, or what is put into them by our parents and our teachers, is, typically, what causes us to form the opinions and beliefs that guide us later in life. If faulty or inaccurate information is inputted into the brain, then it follows that the opinions or beliefs based upon that information will be faulty as well.

I was born in 1958 and made my way through the same public school system as did all the other so-called Baby Boomers who were born after the end of World War II. I was taught the same things as they were, and I grew up having many of the same personal experiences they did. But, for some reason, when I reached the age of 40, my brain suddenly developed an interest in learning more about the history of this country and the establishment of its system of government.

Now, 20 years later, I am told by some that I am very smart; which I find ironic because if I’m so smart why is it that very few utilize the information I’m attempting to pass on to them? Besides, I don’t like being called smart, because I’m not; I’m passionate about learning and devote a great deal of my spare time towards the acquiring of new knowledge. As Alexander Hamilton, (a man I despise), said, “Men give me credit for some genius. All the genius I have is this. When I have a subject in mind I study it profoundly. Day and night it is before me. My mind becomes pervaded with it… the effort which I have made is what people are pleased to call the fruit of genius. It is the fruit of labor and thought.”

Albert Einstein purportedly once said, “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know.” Now whether he actually said that is beside the point, because, as I have found, the sentiment is true; the more I learn the more I realize how little I actually know.

As an example, recently I found a website with tons of material relating to the Founding of our country and its system of government and I boasted on Facebook that by the time I’m done putting all those documents into Word files I will probably have around 2,000 documents. My friend Michael Gaddy quickly told me that he has over 10,000 documents stored on his; so compared to how much he knows I am just beginning my educational process.

Then there is another friend of mine, Jeffrey Bennett, who began publishing a series of books entitled, America: The Grand Illusion, which were chocked full of documents and speeches dating back to before the first settlers ever set foot upon American soil. So compared to him, I am but a relative newcomer to the quest for knowledge.

But there is one thing that I have found in my own personal quest for knowledge; that being that what I was taught in school was either an outright lie or that it was lacking in certain aspects of the topic of study and therefore incomplete.

For instance, I was taught that the Constitution was written in the city of Philadelphia in 1787, and was shortly thereafter ratified by the States. But that is only part of the story. I was NOT exposed to the process of producing the Constitution; which can only be discovered if one were exposed to Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention. I was NOT taught that ratifying the Constitution was not a cake walk; that a long and heated debate ensued between those who supported its ratification and those who opposed it.

In that instance the information I was given was lacking in its coverage of the pertinent information. Now whether this was intentional, or whether it was due to the faculties belief that there simply was not enough time to cover the subject thoroughly is up for debate; although I am inclined to believe it was intentionally done so as to produce graduates who did not grow up questioning the things there government was doing.

I would call that a lie of omission; because relevant facts were omitted from my education. Then there is the Civil War; where most of what I was taught about that subject was an outright lie. Sure, the War happened, the South lost, and the battles discussed actually took place; but that’s about all they got right. I was taught that the Civil War was fought to end slavery; and it wasn’t until I began my own personal investigation into the war, and the causes for it, that I discovered I had been lied to.

Yet how many people in America still believe that the Civil War was fought to end slavery? I would say quite a few; otherwise we wouldn’t see these Civil War monuments being taken down at an alarming rate. In fact, if the people of this country truly understood the causes behind the Civil War, and the consequences of its outcome, they would be calling for the removal of Lincoln’s face from Mount Rushmore and the destruction of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.

One of the fatal flaws in the mindset of the average American is that they see those they elect as being superior to them; when in fact the reverse is true. We elect them, they are our representatives, we are the masters and they are the servants. They cannot simply enact laws just because they think these laws are in our best interests. They cannot enact laws simply because the majority of the people support their passage. They are confined to certain specifically enumerated powers; found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution; nothing more, nothing less.

James Madison is considered to be the Father of our Constitution, as it was due to his pushing for a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation that we even have a Constitution. So it would be prudent so see what he has to say about a loose interpretation of what is meant by the General Welfare. In a speech opposing bounties, (subsidies), for Cod Fisheries in New England, Madison stated, “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” (My emphasis)

Then of course there is this; while serving as Vice President under President John Adams, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following in opposition to Adams signing into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, “…whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers…”

It is my belief that we are not taught these things in school because it might instill in the minds of those they are seeking to control the knowledge that they have the right to resist the enforcement of laws that violate the Constitution. Our public school systems are no longer institutions of learning; they are indoctrination centers where we are taught to comply with whatever laws our government enacts; for they have our best interests in mind when they pass these laws.

The problem I have encountered is that is next to impossible to break through years of conditioning; years of indoctrination. It seems that once people have established certain beliefs they are reluctant to let go of them when introduced to information that contradicts those beliefs.

I hate to bring a movie scene into a serious discussion, but it reminds me of the scene in the Matrix after Neo discovers the truth and refuses to accept it; telling Morpheus to get him out of the construct. As Neo staggers to the floor, Cypher says, “He’s gonna pop”; meaning his brain is going to shut down because it is not capable of handling the truth. Later Morpheus apologizes for freeing Neo from the Matrix, saying, “We have a rule. We never free a mind once it’s reached a certain age. It’s dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go.”

However, later, after Neo has accepted the truth, Morpheus tells him, “The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around. What do you see? Business people, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.”

That’s how I see most people today, part of the system that enslaves them. They will argue and fight with anyone who threatens their belief systems regardless of whether or not they are confronted with incontrovertible facts. Most either believe in the two party system, or they simply don’t care one way or the other who runs their government.

On the one hand you have those who refuse to see that no matter which party is in control of government, government itself continues to grow in size, in power, and in the process, creates more debt. Their allegiance is to party instead of the fundamental principles that established America as an independent country at the end of the Revolution.

Then on the other hand you have those who care more about their sports, their video games, their Reality TV, or whatever other form of entertainment they enjoy. These are the people who probably couldn’t name the current Vice President, or list 5 of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
To tell you the truth, I don’t know which of the two is more dangerous to liberty; the ignorant apathetic masses, or those who believe in a system that destroys the liberty it was established to secure for us.

In 1822 James Madison wrote a letter to W.T. Barry in which he stated, “…a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” But that knowledge is of no use if it is faulty or incomplete. Those who seek to keep you ignorant, keep you enslaved to them, are not going to impart this knowledge to you; you are going to have to seek it out on your own. Whether you choose to do that or remain ignorant is your choice; but you cannot avoid the consequence of whatever choice you make.

For you see, Madison also told Mr. Barry, “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.” If you want my honest opinion I’d have to go with Option 3…both; as our government is both a tragedy and a farce.

It is a tragedy in that it does things it was never intended it be allowed to do, and it is a tragedy in that it destroys the liberty it was established to protect. It is a farce because the two political parties only differ in how they seek to use the coercive power of government to impose their agendas upon the people; and the people fall for it; flocking to the polls to vote for their flavor of servitude and bondage.

I believe the extent to which a person seeks out, and accepts knowledge is directly proportional to their patriotism; the less one is patriotic the less they care about learning the truth about the how and why their government was established; and are less concerned when their government does things it was never authorized to do.

I have chosen to acquire as much knowledge as I can, and to try and share it with those who are open minded enough to consider it. I have chosen to change how I think and feel based upon the knowledge I have acquired. What this means is that I cannot support this government we have today until it starts repealing laws and begins to return to the one envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, one which is “…a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government…”

If that makes me an outcast, a pariah, a threat to the status quo, so be it; so where our Founders; men like Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. I’d rather have my name go down in the history books alongside theirs than be listed among those who meekly accepted the bondage which was imposed upon them by their government.

However, like I said at the beginning, what we put into our brains is what causes us to form the opinions and beliefs we hold. If you want to keep putting garbage into your brain, then your opinions and beliefs will be garbage as well.

You have a choice to make America; wake the hell up and start learning the truth, or accept that your government is tyrannical and that you are slaves. Knowledge is the key, and as they say on the TV Show the X-Files, “The truth is out there.” All you gotta do is look for it, and be willing to accept it once you find it.

But, as von Goethe said, “Knowing is not enough, we must apply.” That means, if you don’t see a candidate who runs on defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights then you should withhold your vote. Otherwise, as Lysander Spooner so aptly states, “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”

Jefferson told us that the spirit of resistance to government is so valuable that he’d rather see it exercised when wrong than not at all. I don’t see much resistance among my fellow countrymen; all I see is blind support and compliance.

Had that mindset existed in 1776 we’d still be eating Fish and Chips instead of burgers and fries, and our national pastime wouldn’t be football, it would be rugby or cricket. America was founded by lawbreakers and rebels, and it was due to their persistent refusal to bow down to a tyrant that we became a free country.

The Boston Tea Party was not peaceful compliance to the law. The tarring and feathering of tax collectors was not peaceful obedience to the mandates of their government. The refusal of the Colonists to surrender their arms at Lexington and Concord certainly wasn’t peaceful obedience either.

America will only become free again when freedom becomes the number one priority for people; replacing comfort and security. Freedom is not free; it comes at the cost of eternal vigilance and a steadfast desire to defend it from all who would threaten it; including your government.

America may once again become a great and mighty empire, but what good is all of that if the people who occupy it have no freedom? Knowledge is the key that will unlock the door and open your minds to the truth that your government seeks to keep you in a perpetual state of servitude and dependency upon the things it does for you. Freedom means taking responsibility for your own life, and accepting the consequences of the choices and decisions you make.

And maybe that’s why no one cares about it, because they’d rather have someone take care of them than accept that responsibility for themselves.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

What’s Really Wrong With America

“Can it be believed that a grateful people will suffer [individuals] to be consigned
to execution, whose sole crime has been the developing and asserting their rights?”
~Thomas Jefferson~
(Excerpt from a letter to William Small, 1775)

If I were asked to boil down America’s problems to one simple statement, I would have to say that it all boils down to us no longer teaching, or practicing the golden rule; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In today’s modern and sophisticated, (and I use that term sarcastically), world it seems the golden rule has been turned on its head; Do unto others before they do unto you.

Some say the golden rule has, as its origin, the teachings of Jesus as found in the Bible in Matthew, Chapter 7, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Yet 500 years before Christ ever walked the Earth Confucius stated a very similar concept, “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.”

If I were to ask YOU what crime is I wonder how many would respond by, “Breaking the law?” Well, no, No, and NO again! A crime is when one individual seeks to take from another their life, their property or their liberty. A crime is a fundamental breach of the golden rule.

We are told that America has a system of justice; yet how can there be any justice when the law prohibits the exercise of our unalienable rights? Our entire system of government was founded upon the belief that all men have certain unalienable rights, granted them by their Creator, and that government is instituted to secure those rights. That is found in the Declaration of Independence and is laid out as the purpose for our government in the Preamble to the Constitution, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (My emphasis)

While I fully realize that these little ramblings of mine might make their way to atheists, or possibly agnostics, it is, or at least it used to be, a fundamental belief that our rights came from God; that they were His gift to us as mankind.

If you’ve ever been to our nation’s capital and visited the Jefferson Memorial you may have seen the inscription on panel 3 which states, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” And what, might I ask, is liberty if it is not the full enjoyment of our rights?

Again to quote from Jefferson, “… rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others…” Therefore, a crime is only committed when one violates the rights of another.

Thomas Paine once called government a necessary evil. What he meant by that is that in small doses government can be good, but if its coercive power is used to destroy the liberty of others, then it becomes something evil; something to be resisted and opposed. And isn’t that exactly what our government has become today? Dare I say, isn’t that the overall mindset of most Americans today; to use the coercive power of government to impose their views and beliefs upon others?

There are those, especially in States such as California, who believe that the role of government is to care for the needy and those who have special circumstances; i.e. the gay community or the illegal immigrants who are impoverished and living among us. But where, if I may be so bold to ask again, does government get the funds to provide these services if not from the taxes they take from those who work?

If I were to venture a guess I would say that upwards of 95% of the American people have no idea how much liberty their government has taken from them; and that number is probably very generous. Yet they still support this government, (depending upon who is in office), even though no matter who that person is government itself still continues to chip away at the liberty it was established to secure and protect. Why is that?

Much of what our Founders believed in came from Locke’s Second Treatise, wherein it states, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions…” Therefore, if man ought not to harm another in their life, health, liberty or possessions, how can anyone say that government is just when it is used for those exact purposes?

Samuel Adams, in a report to the Committee of Correspondence in 1772 stated, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.” Those are our Natural Rights, the gifts given us by our Creator, and anyone who threatens them does not live according to the rules of Nature or Nature’s God.

Yet look at how those who stand up for liberty are treated; they are laughed at, scorned, and ridiculed; called enemies of the State. Damn right we’re enemies of the State because the STATE is the enemy of liberty! It does not matter that government, (possibly), is acting on the will of the majority, the majority does not have the right to deprive the minority of any of their rights.

It’s funny how people are always claiming that the reason they support measures which deprive a segment of society of their rights is that they are supporting the minorities. Yet didn’t Ayn Rand once mockingly say, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

I have my rights and you have yours, and neither of us can do anything which violates the rights of either one of us. So how is it that a government created to protect our rights is being used to destroy them with nary a whimper of protest from the majority of the people in this country?

For instance, the Supreme Court, (which is part of the government in case you have forgotten), has ruled that prayer is not allowed in school because it violates the separation of church and state. In the Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson states, “One of the amendments to the Constitution… expressly declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others.”

What is prayer if it is not a conversation between a believer and his God? Therefore, is not the banning of prayer in any public setting not a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech? No one says that prayer must be forced upon anyone, but to prohibit it simply because others do not believe as they do, or because others find it offensive is a violation of one’s right to freedom of speech.

Besides, had people read the 1st Amendment they would have seen that not only does it say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”, it also says, “… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

The reason they worded it that way was to leave government out of the religious beliefs of the people; meaning that the government could not give preferential treatment to one sect; or establish one particular sect as a ‘national religion.’ It was never intended to prohibit religious teaching in schools; something that was affirmed by a early Supreme Court ruling, “Why may not the Bible and especially the New Testament be read and taught as a divine revelation in school? Where else can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?” (Source: Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 1844)

The same misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment’s protection of religious freedom is what is also allowing for those who are offended by things they disagree with to have monuments dedicated to Confederate heroes torn down at an alarming rate. All these monuments are being torn down because the people behind it believe they represent racism and prejudice. Yet these same people reject any evidence which contradicts their beliefs; because to accept it would require that they admit they were wrong and apologize; something they are not inclined to do.

That’s just one example; the loss of our freedom of speech and expression. What about our right to defend ourselves, our property and our liberty? Didn’t Adams say that it was our right to defend our Lives, our Liberty and our Property in the best manner we can? Yet there are laws saying when, where, and under what circumstances we can use deadly force to do so; and to violate those laws makes US the criminals.

How crazy is that?

Locke expressed this basic right as follows, “This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else.”

Yet if someone breaks into my home, and I use deadly force to defend my property, I must be able to prove that I feared for my life; otherwise I will be charged with murder or manslaughter. Again, what about my right to defend what is mine from those who would take it from me without my consent?

Then of course there is the taxation of people to fund programs which aid the poor and destitute. Again, returning to the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, we read, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” Sure, charity is fine if it is voluntary, but mandated charity by government decree is theft of my wages without my consent for purposes I choose not to support.

What about our right to privacy; the belief that every man’s home is his castle and free from governmental intrusion; something protected by the 4th Amendment? Well, apparently the government doesn’t care about that either, as it monitors us routinely in our private conversations and electronic communications; all to keep us safe from terrorism. Yet the Supreme Court once held, “It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of the liberties … which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.” (Source: US v Robel, 1967)

Once again, no complaints from the people; except for us tin foil hat conspiracy theorists and right wing extremists.

Believe me, these few examples I’ve given are just the tip of the iceberg. What about how government, via the FDA, seeks to ban the use of natural, or holistic medicine, for the treatment of disease; as that does not benefit government’s corporate benefactors in the pharmaceutical industry? After all, if we could cure disease by eating right and by taking natural remedies, then the drug companies would go bankrupt…and we simply can’t allow that, can we? (And that was sarcasm if you didn’t recognize it)

I could go on and on and on even more about how our government is using its coercive power to destroy the liberty it was established to secure, but I won’t simply because I don’t want to overwhelm you with data. Besides, I don’t think what I’ve already said is going to change anyone’s opinion anyway.

The point I’m trying to make is that it all boils down to a breach of the golden rule; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you don’t want me telling you how to live your life, don’t tell me how I must live mine. My rights, my liberty are mine, just as yours are yours. You leave mine alone and we’ll get along just fine. You start messing with my rights and then that’s when we’re gonna have issues.

And that’s why I DO NOT support this government, because it is being used to destroy my liberty at the behest of others; be it corporate or special interests; or even the will of a very vocal minority who take offense at me and my lifestyle.

I don’t care who is elected president; it could be Trump, it could be the Dali Lama, it could be Mother Theresa for all I care, if government seeks to restrict my liberty in any way shape or fashion, government is my enemy and I refuse to support it.

Any true lover of liberty would feel the same as I do. So, what does that say about you? Because, in concluding Jefferson’s quote about rightful liberty, he also said, “…I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

You see, government may be the tool that is destroying liberty, but you people who support it are equally complicit because you choose to place party over principle, the tyranny of an oppressive government over the sweet blessing of liberty.

And if Samuel Adams were alive today I’m certain he would tell you the same thing he told his countrymen back in the struggle for America’s independence, “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Fate Has A Sense of Irony

“All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
~John Adams~

In 2016 Governor Gerry Brown signed into law SB-3 which would phase in a series of increases in California’s minimum wage until it finally reaches the goal of $15 per hour in 2023. This was done to provide a ‘living wage’ for those working minimum wage jobs. I’m telling you right now, you may as well start stuffing little squares of toilet paper in your wallets and purses, because if you don’t learn about the nature of coin, credit and circulation it will have about the same value as the money you currently use to purchase goods and services.

How about we drop the minimum wage down to $1.25 per hour like it was back in 1964? Before you say I must be out of my mind let me add a little caveat to that; and while we’re at it, why don’t we restore the integrity of our monetary system? Allow me to explain.

Are you aware that back in 1964 the average annual salary of a working American was $4,576; yet people got by. Today that would be considered poverty level and make those receiving that amount eligible for all manner of government subsidies.

Did you know that in 194 you could buy a brand new Chevy Camero, right off the lot, for around $2,588? Today that same car will run you ten times as much, with basic models starting around $25,000 MSRP. Did you know that in 1964 you could buy a brand new home for around $21,000, yet today that same home would cost you over $147,000? What else has gone up? Well, the price of a gallon of milk used to be less than a dollar, now it’s around $3; a dozen eggs used to be $.54 and gas was $.30 a gallon.

Much of that can be attributed to inflation; something people mistakenly believe to be the rising cost of goods and services. Inflation is not, I repeat NOT the rising cost of goods; it is the loss of purchasing power of your money.

1964 was the last year our government minted silver coins for circulation; and had they continued doing so, today $1.25 in silver would be worth $15.35. Hmmm, that’s right about where they want to raise the minimum wage to in California.

Our money used to be worth something; it was backed by either silver or gold and could be redeemed for either at any Federal Reserve Bank. That’s right, at any time you could waltz right into a branch of the Federal Reserve and turn in your paper money and walk out with the equivalent in gold. The last year you were able to do that was 1971; before President Nixon took America off the gold standard.

There was a time when, for every dollar printed, there was an equivalent amount of gold backing it up in Fort Knox. Now whether there is any gold left in Fort Knox is the stuff of conspiracy theories right and left, but the point is that those paper, (well actually they are clothe) bills you carry around are no longer backed by gold; therefore the government can produce as many of them as they want to fund their operations and keep the economy floating. Remember all that Quantative Easing in 2008 when the FED purchased $800 billion in bonds and treasury notes to boost a lagging economy? Well, that’s a perfect example of flooding the economy with paper money; which is the root cause of inflation.

What people don’t seem to realize is that the FED, just like any other bank, is there to make a profit for their shareholders. They don’t actually have any reserve currency, or at least they didn’t when they were first established back in 1913. So how could a bank without any cash reserves fund our country unless it pulled money out of thin air?

So, if the FED is purchasing billions of dollars in T-Bonds and Treasury Notes, what’s in it for them? Well, how many of you have heard of, or ever purchased a U.S. Savings Bond? If you have you know that you pay, say $50 for a bond, then wait a certain amount of time and then redeem it for $100. Where does that profit come from if not from the government? And where does the government get their money? Well they either get it from your pay in the form of income taxes, or they borrow it.

When I was stationed in Spain I knew a guy who came from Arizona and he had a checking account back there with just enough to keep it open. When he got to Spain he opened another checking account at the bank on base. He would write a check from his account in Arizona and deposit it into his account in Spain. Then he would turn around and write a check from his account in Spain and mail it back to his bank in Arizona to be deposited. At the same time he was spending money right and left; far beyond what was being deposited into his account by the Air Force.

Eventually his house of cards came crashing down around him. First he bounced one check, then another. Then he’d start getting two or three per week, until suddenly he was bouncing them every day. Finally our commander called him in to his office and he was demoted and sent to a financial management class. Luckily he wasn’t booted out of the Air Force, but it goes to show you what happens when you try and spend more than you take in, and cover your tracks by trying to shift non-existent funds around.

In a way that is exactly what your government has been doing since we went off the gold standard in 1971, but instead of trying to fool the banks they just borrow the money with the promise of paying it back at a later date. You see, paper money has always been just a means of purchasing goods or services; it is real estate; or property that has true value. If you own all the land in a country then you own the country pretty much. Well, the United States, and the labor of those living in it, are the collateral on the debt your government accumulates…and you fools keep asking your government to keep doing more and more for you, when at the same time you beg to keep your taxes low.

You can’t have it both ways people; at least while expecting your government to remain solvent. One of three things must happen; your government will have to either cut its spending, it will have to raise your taxes, or it will have to keep borrowing money until it goes bankrupt.

Do you know what the GDP, or Gross Domestic Product is? The GDP is the total value of all goods produced by a country; it is a measure of the economic strength of a country. Well the GDP for the U.S. last year was $19.39 billion. It is expected to go even higher under President Trump, and should be cause for celebration among all Trump supporters; right?

Well hold your horses pardners, there’s a downside to all this. Economists estimate that under Trump our national debt will go up by $5.6 trillion; which far exceeds our GDP. That’s not taking into consideration that our national debt is already an astronomical $21.7 trillion.

I constantly hear that we just have to raise taxes on the rich and all will be just hunky dory. That tells me that people have absolutely no idea the amount of money our nation owes to its debtors. As I said, the national debt stands at $21 trillion, plus change. The combined wealth of the ten richest men in America is $523 billion…NOT EVEN A TRILLION DOLLARS! You see a trillion is a thousand billion; so the combined wealth of the ten richest men in America is only 1/2 trillion; not even a dent in the national debt.

Even if we were, somehow, able to pay off our national debt, how long do you think it would be before it begins to climb again with the way your government spends money today? So they would just start borrowing non-existent money, (it’s all done via computers now with entries into columns without any actual funds being transferred), then the government uses that non-existent money to deposit into the accounts of its employees, (government workers, the military, and those on social services) and then that money makes its way into the economy…CAUSING INFLATION; which means that the money you hold in your hands is worth less.

As I write this the value of a troy ounce of silver is $14.19 and the value of a troy ounce of gold is $1,210. That stuff you carry in your wallets and purses is money that only has any purchasing power because you have faith in it; you trust that if you pull it out of your wallet and hand it to someone in a store that you can receive a certain amount of goods or services in return for it.

Yet since the FED was created in 1913 the value of that paper you call money has dropped astronomically. Today it would take $2,549 to buy the same amount of goods or services that $100 would have paid for in 1913 when the FED was first established; that’s how much inflation they have caused by their monetary policies and our governments continued borrowing.

Yet people think that the answer to their economic woes is just to raise the minimum wage until people can afford to live the American Dream. That’s why I began this piece with that quote from John Adams, because things haven’t changed; most of our problems of an economic nature are due to “…the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”

People also believe that they can change things at the polls by switching back and forth between Republican and Democratic control of their government. Well, this national debt has been growing steadily for decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations; so I have but one question for y’all; how’s that voting thing working out for you.

Wasn’t it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity was repeating the same thing over and over expecting different results? Well, no matter, for that is what I see, an insane belief that people are going to Make America Great Again by voting for new masters once every so often.

The President who signed into law the Federal Reserve Act once said, “Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of the government. The history of government is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is the history of the limitation of government, not the increase of it.”

I suppose Morpheus was right when he told Neo, “Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.”

Posted in General | Leave a comment

My Thoughts on the Thousand Oaks Shooting

As I was sitting here writing today’s commentary I heard the TV in the background and some woman, the mother of one of the Thousand Oaks victims, was saying, “My son was in Las Vegas and he came home. He didn’t come home last night. I don’t want prayers, I want GUN CONTROL!”

Lady, this is gun control; being able to hit what you’re aiming at…

Guns are controlled by the people holding them. If you put a gun down on a table it won’t kill anyone until a disturbed or evil person picks it up and uses it to shoot others. Guns are simply a tool. You can kill a person with a hammer or a baseball bat as well, but I never hear people calling for hammer or bat control laws to be passed.

What we need to do is find the root cause behind why people are committing these acts of violence and seek to put an end to them; be they a lack of morals or respect for the lives of others. These things can change how people think, and therefore how they use guns.

For crying out loud, how many gun control laws do we have already; probably hundreds of them, if not thousands. Yet why is it that in the places where gun control is the strictest we see the most gun related violence? Look at the crime stats for places like Chicago and our nation’s capital; that alone should show you that strict gun control laws don’t work.

That’s because guns, or the availability of them, isn’t the problem. It is a people problem, and until we accept that, and seek to remedy it, we will continue to see these mass shootings.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Doomed From The Very Beginning

“What if I told you everything you knew was a lie?”
(The Matrix)

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those
who falsely believe themselves to be free.”

~Johan Wolfgang von Goethe~

Every so often the news media will report on the President’s, or Congresses, approval ratings. Have you ever wondered how they come up with the numbers they give you? What happens is a polling agency will call a certain percentage of Americans and that, supposedly, gives them an accurate assessment of the overall sentiments of the country.

I got one of those calls once and what they do is they ask you a series of questions and you are confined in your answer to providing them with a number; which is representative of a specific answer. For instance, they might ask you if you agree with how the President is handling the economy, and a 1 means you strongly agree, a 2 means you somewhat agree, a 3 means you’re not sure, a 4 means you somewhat disagree, and a 5 means you strongly disagree.

The one time I got called I asked the lady who was conducting the poll why they didn’t ask why I agree or disagree, and she told me that she didn’t establish the guidelines, but it was probably because they didn’t care about why a person agreed or disagreed, they only wanted to gauge the support or opposition to either Congress or the President.

I mention all this because I sometimes think that people don’t even know why they support a particular candidate; beside the fact that they weren’t the person who was running against them who belonged to the ‘other’ political party. Rarely do the reasons our government was created, or the powers it was given, come into political discussions today, and I believe that is intentional so as to keep the people fighting against each other rather than focusing their attention upon the crimes of government as a system, or as an entity.

The important point for those in power is not who gets elected, it is maintaining the public’s faith in the system. It does not matter to those in power whether people disagree with what they are doing, so long as they continue to vote, continue to pay their taxes, and continue to obey the laws they pass.

You see, our system derives its authority by way of our consent to it; and nothing says you consent to it more than participating in the process of electing people to it. No matter how hard I try, or how I word it, I can’t seem to get people to care about how our country went from 13 independent nation/states into this consolidated entity known as the United States with an arbitrary and despotic government. It’s almost as if people think, “Well that’s all we got, so we might as well play along with their game.”

Was that the mindset of our Founding Fathers? Did those of the 2nd Continental Congress say, “Well gee whiz guys, all we got is this King and his Parliament, so we might as well just play along and obey the laws they impose upon us.” No, they said, “Gee guys, it seems like this King and his Parliament have grown a bit too big for their britches; passing all these taxes and laws without our consent. I think it’s high time we told them to take a hike and see if we can’t do things better on our own.”

Of course those aren’t the exact words they used, but they echo the sentiments expressed by those who adopted the Declaration of Independence; our nation’s birth certificate and the foundation upon which any American system of government should rest – and for awhile, it did.

I think everyone, at least those who are somewhat politically active and informed, have their own beliefs as to the extent to which our current system is either broken or corrupt; and we each have our own beliefs as to what can be done to remedy that. My intent here is not to provide you with a means of fixing what is wrong, but to show you how we were screwed from the get go; how our current system of government was designed to devolve from one designed to protect liberty to one which destroys it from the onset.
If I were to ask most people their citizenship status, most would answer that they are Americans. That shows me that most do not truly understand their status within a system of government that they are told is a Republic. The men who fought in the Revolution, and later went on to write and ratify the Constitution did not think of themselves as Americans, or United States citizens. In fact, back in 1787 there was no such thing as a U.S. citizen; each was a citizen of the State wherein they resided.

Let me ask you a question, and I’d like for you to think about it for a moment before you answer. Why do we even have a government for the United States of America? After all, doesn’t each State have its own government; so what is the purpose the US government is supposed to serve?

Before the American Revolution there was no centralized system of government for the United States; yet each Colony thrived and enjoyed pretty much perfect liberty…that is until King George III decided to impose his will upon them. Our first system of government; the one created by the Articles of Confederation, was established as a body to act as a central point to manage the war effort so as not to have 13 individual and separate states trying to fight a war against a common enemy.

One of the key points the Articles of Confederation established was, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” (Source: Article II of the Articles of Confederation)

If each State already had a system of government to manage their own internal affairs, then the ONLY purpose for which a centralized system of government should serve was to act as an intermediary between the States; having no direct authority to affect the lives, property or liberty of the people. If you read through the Articles of Confederation you will see that the powers given the Congress they established primarily are directed towards the States, not the people. The only reference made which applies directly to the people is in regards to them being able to travel freely between the States and enjoy the same rights they had in their native State, “The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.” (Source: Article 4 of the Articles of Confederation)

So, if each State was free and independent from the other 12 comprising the ‘United States’, then why would they need to replace the existing government with the one outlined in the Constitution? There can be but one answer from two options. Either the government created by the Articles of Confederation was weak and ineffective, or there were those who sought to expand the powers of the central government and provide it with the means of annihilating the States as sovereign entities.

On February 21, 1787 the Congress of these United States issued a declaration which said, “Congress having had under consideration the letter of John Dickinson, Esquire, chairman of the commissioners who assembled at Annapolis during the last year, also the proceedings of the said commissioners and entirely coinciding with them as to the inefficiency of the federal government and the necessity of devising such farther provisions as shall render the same adequate to the exigencies of the Union do strongly recommend to the different legislatures to send forward delegates to meet the proposed convention on the second Monday in May next at the city of Philadelphia.” (My emphasis)

That was the sole reason delegates were sent to Philadelphia in the Spring of 1787, to come up with proposals for amendments to strengthen the existing Congress so as to better serve the exigencies of the Union. It is inconceivable that the State Legislatures would send delegates to a convention whose stated purpose was to deprive them of their sovereign authority.

Yet that is exactly what James Madison intended from the onset, stating to George Washington, “Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcileable with their aggregate sovereignty; and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for some middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.”

Madison sought to diminish the State authority to such an extent they would rendered as nothing more than subordinately useful. Not only that, he wanted the government he was about to create to have an absolute negative, or veto power, over all laws passed by the States, “Over and above this positive power, a negative in all cases whatsoever on the legislative acts of the States, as heretofore exercised by the Kingly prerogative, appears to me to be absolutely necessary, and to be the least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions.”

Madison was saddened and discouraged when, during the convention, the Senate was given so much power in determining what laws this new government would create. He sought not to give the States that much say in what laws this new government would be passing; choosing rather to have the representatives of the people, (The House of Representatives), having most of that authority.

What Madison sought was a consolidation of the States into a United States; which would have eradicated the federalist system established by the Articles of Confederation and replaced it with a nationalist system. Thankfully there were those in attendance at the convention who saw that his plan would place the smaller States at the will of the larger more populated ones, and they sought to give each State an equal voice in the Senate; thereby giving them the ability to more readily oppose laws that might threaten their sovereignty.

On December 12, 1787 delegates from the Pennsylvania Ratification Assembly issued a statement opposing the finished document submitted to the States for their consideration; i.e. The Constitution. In it they stated the following about the proceedings which produced the finished document, “The doors were kept shut, and the members brought under the most solemn engagements of secrecy. Some of those who opposed their going so far beyond their powers, retired, hopeless, from the convention others had the firmness to refuse signing the plan altogether, and many who did sign it, did it not as a system they wholly approved, but as the best that could be then obtained, and notwithstanding the time spent on this subject, it is agreed on all hands to be a work of haste and accommodation.”

Not only did the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention exceed their authority; not only did they keep their proceedings secret from those outside the walls of Independence Hall, they also, upon completing their work, dictated the terms by which their finished document would be accepted or rejected.

As little as it means today, back in 1787 the Articles of Confederation was the constitution which governed the actions of the Congress they had created. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it WAS the Supreme Law of the Land; much as our current Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the Land. Therefore, whatever that document said about amending it was the ONLY legal means by which it could be altered or abolished. So what did the Articles of Confederation say about this process? Well, in Article 13 we read, “… nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

Is that what happened, the constitution was confirmed by the State Legislatures? No, it was submitted to assemblies; consisting of residents of the various States. Not only was it submitted to the people directly, a simply 3/4 majority was all that would be required to implement the proposed plan of government; not the unanimous consent of all 13 States.

So, not only was our system of government conceived in secrecy; violating the authority given the delegates who created it, it was also implemented contrary to existing law. In short, our system of government was conceived in fraud, and enacted illegally. Great start for a system of government; wouldn’t you say?

Even with all that, what the delegates ended up producing wasn’t a bad system of government. Ben Franklin, in an address to the delegates before they voted upon the finalized document, stated, “In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does.”

The key point is Franklin’s comment that their proposed system of government could “… only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” If we vote for corrupt or unprincipled people, then we deserve the government we get; and this applies doubly to those who consistently vote for the lesser of two evils.

As Noah Webster once said, ” When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, ‘just men who will rule in the fear of God.’ The preservation of [our] government depends on the faithful discharge of this Duty; if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded. If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the Laws.”

Had our government strictly adhered to the Constitution instead of seeking implied or hidden powers within it, we might never have ended up with this monstrosity we have today; one that sends our men off to defend American values in countries we have no business being in; one which accrues debt faster than electricity flows from the light switch to the light bulb; one that destroys liberty instead of defending it.

Yet, even though from the moment our government went into effect it sought to expand its powers beyond those specifically granted, there was the Declaration of Independence; lurking in the background providing us with the means of restoring our sacred and unalienable rights if government should ever become tyrannical and despotic.

In fact, a certain young member of the House of Representatives once said, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much territory as the inhabit.”

Do you want to know who said that? Why, it was none other than Abraham Lincoln, who did as all politicians do; reversed his position when those he sought to govern chose to shake off their existing government and form one which better suited their needs – the Confederate States of America.

If the Philadelphia Convention built the coffin that would hold our Republic and the liberty government is supposed to defend, Abraham Lincoln and his invasion of the South, and the resulting Reconstruction Laws passed after the Civil War drove the final nails into that coffin; and we have lived under despotism ever since.

There isn’t an American alive today who has lived in a country that enjoys true liberty, or one which is part of a real Republic. There are, however, those who see what has happened – and how it has happened – but our voices fall upon the deaf ears of a populace who still believe in the system simply because they are ignorant and apathetic about how it was created and for what purposes it was created to serve.

You can play your silly game of partisan politics all you want, but no matter who you elect government will continue to grow; it will continue to amass record debt; it will continue to interfere in the affairs of other sovereign nations; and it will continue to pass laws that erode what liberty you have left…of that I can assure you.

In closing I’d like to leave you with two final quotes, both from Lysander Spooner. Ponder them and then ask yourself why you still consent to being governed by tyrants.

– A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.

– But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Why Didn’t They Listen To Patrick Henry? (Probably For The Same Reason No One Listens To Me)

In 1776 the 13 Colonies of British America declared their independence from British rule. They did not seek to abolish or overthrow the existing government in Great Britain; they merely said to the world that its authority no longer extended to them. Of course the government said, “Wait a minute there fellas, where do you think you’re going? We’re the government, you can’t just up and say that our authority no longer extends to you.” Well, they didn’t actually say it that way, but they may as well have; as indicated by how they responded to the Colonists attempt to free themselves from British rule.

I have done quite a bit of reading on the period leading up to the actual war for independence and I have yet to come across anything written or said by our Founders that states that they were fighting against the forces of their government because that government did not create enough jobs, or that it did not do enough to keep them safe, secure and comfortable. In fact, the British government had just recently expended a great deal of money defending them against the French and the Indians during the French and Indian War.

So if it wasn’t those things that they fought for, what was it? Well, to put it in as few words as possible, all I need do is quote Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death.” It wasn’t so much the taxes the King and Parliament had imposed upon them than it was the fact that those taxes had been imposed upon them without their having any say in it; the whole issue of taxation without representation. What they were rebelling against was the belief that a government, be it a monarchy or any other form, has the right to arbitrarily enact laws that are binding upon them without their having a say in whether those laws were passed.

It was that principle that Madison would refer to a decade later in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties–we hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.”

To put it simply, our Founders fought a war against their government so that they could be free of its ability to ‘bind them in all cases whatsoever.’ (Source: The Declaratory Act, 1765) All they wanted was to be able to live, work, and enjoy true liberty without government taxing them and telling them how they must live their lives; the very same reason many of the first settlers to America fled Britain for.

Then what did they do with that liberty they had fought so hard to obtain; they turned around and created a system of government that had all the machinations to turn around and destroy the liberty they fought so hard for. That’s what they did. Taken at face value the Constitution does not establish a bad form of government; it isn’t perfect, but it isn’t bad either. But, the problem with the Constitution is that it contains too many loopholes, too many ways in which it can be interpreted to mean things it doesn’t; and it does not provide the people with the means of punishing those who fail to strictly adhere to the limits it imposes upon government; both elected and private citizens. After all, when is the last time you saw one of our lawmakers arrested for violating the Constitution? Sure, there may be instances where they are charged with other crimes, such as embezzlement or fraud, but not once in my lifetime have I seen anyone in government arrested for violating the Supreme Law of the Land.

It’s funny that people will fight against oppression when it comes from a foreign source, such as was the case with the Colonists struggle against the tyranny of King George III, yet they will support the same tyranny and oppression when it comes from a government of their own making; and one which they participate in electing those who end up tyrannizing them.

It seems to be the case that the majority is always willing to accept measures that lead to the limitation of their liberty, and those who speak out in warning against those measures are ridiculed or ignored. Those we know as the anti-Federalists attempted to warn the people alive in 1787 about the dangers posed by this ‘new’ system of government they were tasked with accepting; yet they were, for the most part, ignored and the Constitution went into effect.

Yet their words are a reminder, to those who will but study them, that there was a well thought out opposition to this new system of government; people who did not fall for the rhetoric and propaganda, and who saw the dangers the Constitution posed to the liberty they had so recently fought a war to obtain.

Recently I have begun re-reading the writings of the anti-Federalists; the papers of Cato, Brutus, the Federal Farmer and Centinel; and the more I do my brain silently screams, “WHY DIDN’T PEOPLE LISTEN TO THEM?” It shouldn’t come as a surprise to me that their words fell upon deaf ears, but still, the recent memories of the war for independence must have still been fresh in their minds; so how could they not have given the proposed Constitution the scrutiny such a decision deserved?

Although it both angers and saddens me, I can at least understand why people today vote for candidates who show no concern over protecting the liberty of those who elect them. There is not a soul alive today in America who has ever known true liberty, so when one talks about how it has been lost the people have no reference point which they can refer, showing how much their liberty has vanished under this system of government.

But they still have brains, and if they would but use them they would be able to see that many of the things the anti-Federalists warned would happen if the people accepted the Constitution have actually come to pass.

For instance, in Centinel 1, published on October 5, 1785, author Samuel Bryan wrote, “How long those rights will appertain to you, you yourselves are called upon to say, whether your houses shall continue to be your castles; whether your papers, your persons and your property, are to be held sacred and free from general warrants, you are now to determine.” In fact, it was this concern which led to the rights protected by the 4th Amendment being included among the 10 amendments comprising our Bill of Rights, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Yet today we see the violation of those sacred rights as part of the price of keeping us safe from terrorist attack; and we don’t think twice about it. Well most people don’t think about it anyway; and those that do are said to be soft on terrorism. The NSA spies upon our public and private conversations; keeping a database of our every communication to be used against us as evidence should we ever fall from grace of the almighty government. The TSA routinely searches our belongings and our persons without warrants or probable cause; and we accept this as part of the price of travelling and keeping us safe.

But Patrick Henry did not say, “Give me jobs or give me death.”, “Give me a booming economy or give me death”, or “Keep me safe and protect me or give me death”, he said, “GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.” That is why, in opposition to the Constitution, he also said, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

He also bemoaned the fact that so many were ready and willing to accept a system of government that clearly had no way of defending the liberty of the people, “Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings-give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else: But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an fellow: Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so, I am contented to be so: I say, the time has been when every pore of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American.”

Well Mr. Henry, I can certainly relate to how you must have felt, because I face that same lack of concern for liberty amongst the people of my time as you did back in 1787. Today people vote, not for the candidate who makes the most convincing argument to defend their liberty, but for the candidate who makes the most convincing promises to do things which the Constitution does not even authorize them to do.

Yet people in this country still vote, still believe that there is this vast gulf of difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties…well, there isn’t! Sure, the voting public who align themselves behind the two parties may be drastically different in their beliefs and ideologies, but the parties themselves are mere machines to churn our candidates who seek to use the coercive power of government for their own benefit; or the benefit of their corporate sponsors.

After all, government implies the power of both making, and enforcing laws. Without any kind of written limitations upon what kind of laws they can pass on our behalf we have tyranny; and that is exactly what we have today because there is not one whit of concern for what limits the Constitution imposes upon our government. It’s all this fuss over the two party paradigm; what the Democrats want to do versus what the Republicans want to do.

I think one of the best quotes I’ve ever read on this comes from Jeff Deist over at the Mises Institute, “By any objective measure, the ideological and policy disagreements between the national Democrat and Republican parties are not significant. Both accept the central tenets of domestic and foreign interventionism, both accept the federal government as the chief organizing principle for American society, and both view politics simply as a fight for control of state apparatus.” And I thank my friend Michael Gaddy for sharing that with me this morning.

Is there a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats? Sure there is, but only by degree; for both ignore the Constitution and seek to use the coercive power of government to do one thing, and one thing only; expand the power of government over our lives. Does it matter that the Republicans call themselves conservative, yet still enact laws which violate your rights or enslave you to a debt that can never be repaid? Sure they aren’t as openly brazen in their position than are the Democrats, but the lesser of two evils is still evil; not matter how much chocolate syrup you cover it with.

One of the lesser known philosophers who arose during the Age of Enlightenment was Denis Diderot, who stated, “No man has received from nature that right to command his fellow human beings.”

Years later Thomas Paine would write, “There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the “end of time,” or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void.”

Our government today rests upon the principle of consent of the governed. Our Founders understood that, which is why the revoked their consent to being governed by the Crown. It is also why, regardless of what reasons led them to do so, why the 11 States of the Confederacy seceded from the Union.
Regardless of whether our government has an army of enforcers whose job is to ensure that the people toe the line and obey the laws they pass, the basic principle upon which our system of government rests is the consent of the governed.

When you vote, when you participate in choosing who will fill the seats of power within a government, you are consenting to the idea that this government is still legitimate; that it holds legal authority over you, your lives, your property, and your liberty.

I was asked the other day how we can fix what is wrong with our system; and the best answer I could give is, revoke your consent to it by not participating in choosing those who enslave you. If enough people did that, maybe then we could cut off their lifeblood, (i.e. taxes), and then maybe we could bring about real change. But as long as people still believe that their vote matters in a rigged game, nothing is going to change.

Sure, I voted yesterday, but only on ballot measures and for the governor; for all the good that did. After all, I do live in the land of fruits and nuts, so it comes as no surprise that they elected someone like Gavin Newsom to be their governor. I sometimes wonder if Californians aren’t hell bent on proving to the rest of the country how stupid they can be.

The point is that most people are too concerned with their daily lives or in seeking out entertainment to become truly informed as to why our system of government was established, or what powers it was originally bestowed with. If people don’t know that, then how are they to be expected to determine if the powers it currently exercises are lawful or not?

Knowledge is key to any hope of restoring this country to one which cherishes liberty, and whose people are willing to die defending it. But from what I see, ignorance and apathy abounds and the people fall in line behind their political parties like obedient little sheep. And, as Albert Einstein once said, “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.”

Posted in General | Leave a comment

What Could Possibly Go Wrong Tomorrow?

The date was September 17, 1787 and the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had cast their votes, with most of them approving of the final document they had just produced. According to some, as Ben Franklin was leaving Independence Hall he was asked by a woman, “Well, Doctor, what have we got―a Republic or a Monarchy?” Franklin is quoted as saying, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” That was 231 years ago and I wonder what Ben Franklin would say were he alive today; have we kept our Republic, or have we let it become something else?

There is no telling how long a time transpired before Franklin was accosted by the woman outside Independence Hall, but sometime before the vote was taken to accept the finished document a speech, prepared by Ben Franklin, was read to the delegates in the hope of uniting them behind the document they had just produced. In that speech Franklin wrote, “I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

The ensuing war of words over whether to accept this new form of government provides, for those who are interested, a unique look at how to interpret the Constitution we all have lived under for the past 231 years. On the one side you have the Federalist Papers, which were written in an effort to convince the, as yet undecided, citizens of New York to support ratification of the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay were nothing more than a marketing campaign designed to get a segment of the population to switch brands; abandon the Articles of Confederation and replace them with their proposed Constitution. As would a used car salesman, they attempted to play down the faults of this Constitution, and exaggerate the benefits; so the Federalist Papers should be taken with a grain of salt when deciding if they are the ultimate guide as to what our Constitution actually created.

Then on the other hand you had those who opposed ratification of the Constitution; known as the anti-Federalists; and there were quite a few prominent men included in this group. There was the Pennsylvania Minority, who were hoodwinked into attending the ratification convention, knowing full well that by them being forced into attending the Constitution was guaranteed to be ratified against their will. There were Patrick Henry and George Mason of Virginia; that leading proponent of American Independence from Britain. And finally, there were George Clinton, Melancton Smith, John Lansing, and Robert Yates of New York. Many of them took pseudonyms when writing against ratification; using the names of Brutus, Cato, and the Federal Farmer to explain to the people why they SHOULD NOT support the ratification of the Constitution.

You know, a thought just crossed my mind; more of a question actually: Why wasn’t I taught any of this in school? What made those who establish the curriculum students are taught decide that this information is so insignificant that it should be left out of the curriculum? Could they possibly have had ulterior motives; that of producing entire generations who have no knowledge of why their system of government was created?

If that is the case, which I believe it is, wouldn’t that make you mad; wouldn’t that instill in you a desire to learn the truth you were not taught? Apparently not, because most people I know could care less about obtaining that knowledge; even though it is readily available on the internet.

If you cannot learn how our system of government was promised to function to those charged with either accepting or rejecting it, how can you hope to begin to know how it has strayed off course from its true purpose? If you do not know how our system of government was supposed to work you are more readily willing to accept the passage of laws that go against the very reasons this government was created.

If you do not know the starting point, how can you begin to learn that from the moment our system of government went into operation it began to morph into the very thing the anti-Federalists tried to warn people about? From the moment George Washington was elected, and set about establishing his cabinet, he let a serpent into the government who would forever alter the reason for which our government was originally established; that serpent being Alexander Hamilton.

Although he commanded respect, due to both his imposing stature and his reputation as the Commander of the Continental Army that had won their independence, I don’t think George Washington was a schemer and a plotter. On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton was; and he, as Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury, sought to impose his vision of what purpose our government should serve. More often than not Washington followed Hamilton’s advice, to the consternation of Thomas Jefferson, who as Washington’s Secretary of State was the voice of limited government and the rights of the people and of the States.

It was Hamilton who gave us the concept of implied powers; meaning that the Constitution was not a strict set of rules by which our government must confine its jurisdiction to. Instead, Hamilton believed that the Constitution was chock full of implied powers; such as an open interpretation of what it was authorized to do under the General Welfare, Necessary and Proper, and Commerce Clauses.

James Madison was one of the 3 authors of the Federalist Papers; meaning he supported the ratification of the Constitution and the establishment of the system of government it outlined. Yet once that government went into operation he aligned himself with Thomas Jefferson in his opposition to Alexander Hamilton’s interpretation of what powers that government should be allowed to exercise.

In 1792 a bill was introduced to provide bounties, (or subsidies as we call them today), to Cod Fisheries along the New England coastline. A bill such as that would readily pass Congress as being vital to the Commerce of the United States; but back in 1792 it was met with stiff opposition; particularly by James Madison; who was then serving in the House of Representatives.

In a speech opposing these bounties Madison stated, “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” (My emphasis)

Then, in 1817, while serving as President, James Madison vetoed a bill sent to him by Congress to “… set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements.” We would call this a public works bill in today’s parlance; something we expect government to do; repair roads, bridges, etc, etc. Yet Madison vetoed this bill, sending it back to Congress with the following message, “The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.”

Yet how many people today are even aware of what bills are being discussed for passage by their representatives? How many people have ever attempted to wade through the legal mumbo jumbo of a Congressional Bill to decipher its meaning? How many have called, or written their elected representatives in opposition to certain bills?

No, what most people do is they limit their involvement to the election of those running for office, and then sit back at home like cheerleaders on the sideline of a football game; cheering on their choice, while booing those who oppose them. If it weren’t so pathetic it would be laughable.
I hate ragging on Trump supporters, but he is the current President and his supporters still stand behind him and his plan to Make America Great Again. What exactly does Make America Great Again mean to you people? Does it mean a booming economy and record low unemployment? Does it mean a strong military that is well trained and ready to kick ass wherever we send them?

My idea of a great America is one in which the government stays out of the lives and wallets of the people and leaves them free to manage their own lives as they see fit. You see, that’s called Liberty; something most people in this country fear because it imposes upon them the responsibility of accepting the consequences for every choice they make in life.

I wonder, what would Trump supporters say if Trump gave a speech in which he said he was shutting down Social Security because it was unconstitutional? What if he told the people that the money they had contributed would be refunded to them, but from this point forward the planning for their retirement years would be their responsibility…how would his supporters react? Of course Trump would never do that, and no president ever will, but the point is that government is not supposed to be our caretaker and babysitter; not if we truly love liberty that is.

People today look to Uncle Sam to solve all their problems. If there is a crisis of some sort they call upon their benevolent Uncle Sam to come to their aid, or pass a new law making their lives safer. But that was NEVER the function of the federal government, as stated by Madison in Federalist 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

In his Letters from a Federal Farmer, Melancton Smith warned, “…unless the people shall make some great exertions to restore to the state governments their powers in matters of internal police; as the powers to lay and collect, exclusively, internal taxes, to govern the militia, and to hold the decisions of their own judicial courts upon their own laws final, the balance cannot possibly continue long; but the state governments must be annihilated, or continue to exist for no purpose.”

The sad thing is, the State Legislatures were supposed to be more concerned with the lives and liberty of the people that inhabited each State, but now they have become extensions of the same two party corruption that permeates our nation’s capital in Washington D.C. Maybe living in California has soured me but the way I see it is that liberty and limited government are the last things anyone thinks of when making their decisions as to who to vote for. They make their decisions based either upon partisan loyalty or upon how a candidate stands on issues that are of importance to each voter.

Anyway, tomorrow are the mid-term elections, where the people of America will go to the polls, ignorant of what the true purpose their government was established to serve, and select those who will hold the seats of power within it…just as they have done for decades, if not longer. What could possibly go wrong?

Posted in General | 1 Comment