Guilty As Charged

Do you recall where you were on June 5, 1989? I do, I had just recently arrived at Clark Air Base, Philippines, and was still getting settled in to my new unit when, on that fateful day, I tuned into the news, (back when I still somewhat trusted them to report the truth) and saw the footage of that lone man in Tiananmen Square stand off against a column of tanks. At the time I thought that guy is either crazy or got a set of cojones the size of basketballs. I recall clearly how the media ran with that story, and how most viewed him as a courageous man standing up to the tyranny of his government. Tank Man took on an almost iconic, or heroic, status as what it means to stand up against tyranny.

I find it almost depressing that people can cheer on freedom fighters like Tank Man, then turn around and insult and denigrate those who take similar stands in their own country. People may say that they have it much better off than those living under the iron thumb of Communism in China, but that’s not the point. The point is, do they have it better off than those who lived in the period immediately following America achieving its independence from Great Britain?

Sure, your standard of living may be higher and you may feel safer and more secure than they did, but is that the point of government, to make you safe and secure? Among those who spoke the loudest for America’s independence was Patrick Henry, who loudly proclaimed the immortal words, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Henry wasn’t the only one, as Ben Franklin is said to have stated, upon the vote to support independence, “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

A year prior, after the stand at Lexington and Concord, Thomas Jefferson authored the Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms in which he states, “Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. … With hearts fortified … we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare that… we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.”

Having read through a great many of our founding documents I have been unable to find any references stating that our Founders sought to create a mighty economic empire, or a great industrial nation capable of providing jobs, comfort and security to its inhabitants. Those beliefs did not begin to show up until the period which saw us go from a Confederation of 13 sovereign states into a Union under a centralized national government; and that became even more apparent once Alexander Hamilton was chosen as George Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury.

What you will find if you read through those old documents from the Revolutionary War era are a preponderance of references to liberty. Even during the arguments over whether to adopt the new system of government proposed by the Convention of 1787 you will find those who argued that this new system of government threatened the liberty they had so recently won. Yet Patrick Henry feared that the spirit which had led them to seek their independence was fading, to be replaced by the desire for a mighty American empire. In his speech against the Constitution, delivered on June 5, 1788, Mr. Henry 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. … 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.”

Can you, the American voters, call yourselves true Americans; according to Patrick Henry’s definition? What is it you vote for when you go off to the polling places to decide who gets to sit in the seats of power within your government? Is it the preservation of your liberty or is it for a better economy, a stronger military, feeling safer and more secure?

You must be tired of hearing me rant on about liberty, and the loss thereof; but liberty is what this country was built upon, and if we lose that we lose our soul as a nation. The very document which established America as a free and independent country says that liberty is among the rights granted us by our Creator, and the preservation of which governments are instituted among men. It also says that when government no longer serves its intended purposes it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

Yet to even hint at overthrowing, or toppling our system of government is now a crime, punishable by upwards of 20 years in prison. According to 18 USC § 2385:

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

So, if you think about it, if Thomas Jefferson were to draft his Declaration of Independence under existing law today, he would be considered guilty of a crime and eligible for up to 20 years in prison. Not only that, he could also never have served as Secretary of State or our 3rd President. If that does not cause you to pause a moment and ask, “What the heck has happened to this country” then I’m afraid nothing will.

America was born of men who resisted the authority of their government to enact laws that deprived them of their liberty. America was born by men who not only believed in the principle of individual liberty; they put their lives on the line to defend those principles – or as we might say today, they put their money where their mouth is.

Those men did not pick up their guns and fight against the authority of their government over trivial and inconsequential inconveniences; they did so only when they saw that their government was taking a steady course to deprive them of all their liberty, and to deny them the ability to defend themselves against tyrants by confiscating their guns.

Boy that sounds scarily similar to what is happening in America right now…if you ask me.

The Declaration of Independence also provides a laundry list of grievances leveled against the King, and although we may not suffer the same injustices they did, we still live under a system of government that seeks to dominate and regulate every aspect of our lives.

The tyranny you live under may not be as apparent to you as it was to those in 1776; but it is there nonetheless. It exists in the laws you obey, the regulations you adhere to, the taxes you pay, and the permits you must obtain to exercise your rights.

Alexis de Tocqueville described this ‘soft’ tyranny as follows, “Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”

The sad thing is that this is exactly what most people want. They want a government that provides for their comfort and security; never realizing that they are surrendering their liberty in the process of obtaining it. Those of us who try to warn them of the danger of such a government are laughed at and scorned; or worse, called domestic terrorists or paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Yet if you knew, and I mean REALLY knew what liberty was, you’d see the danger in supporting this government as clearly as I do; you would also see the danger of blindly supporting those who enforce the laws it passes upon you as well.

When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence he stated, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

I’d say that the history of your government is a long train of abuses and usurpations; making its intentions clear to all who would but open their eyes to the truth. Jefferson also stated that, not only was it our right, it was our DUTY to throw off such government. It wasn’t an option it was the responsibility of every liberty loving man, woman and child in this country.

I wonder, if charges were leveled against all the people of this country for neglecting their duty, and the jury consisted of men like Henry, Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, John Hancock and Joseph Warren, what verdict would they deliver against YOU and I?

Would the foreman of the jury stand up and declare, Your Honor, we find the defendant guilty as charged for not defending the liberty we fought so hard to obtain for them. Can you look in the mirror and tell me that you are 100% sure that you would walk free if you were brought to trial for defending your liberty? And if not, then how dare you call yourself a true American and a patriot!

Even I, who write constantly about the loss of liberty, would only stand a 50-50 chance of walking out of such a courtroom a free man, and if those are my odds, what do you think yours would be?

Thoughts to ponder…

Posted in General | Leave a comment


Have you ever heard the term Watchman? I’m sure, at some point in your life you may have stumbled across it; as in the case of a night watchman; or to use the modern vernacular, security guard. For lack of a better word, that’s all a Watchman is, a security guard whose sole job is to alert the people of impending danger. Sure, nowadays they alert the police so that they can respond, but in the olden days there was no police force, so the job of the Watchman was to alert the people of any danger or threat so that they could take the necessary measures to defend themselves.

Watchmen date back as far as Biblical times, and they are mentioned throughout the Bible. My favorite passage dealing with Watchmen is found in the Book of Ezekiel, Chapter 33, Verse 6, “But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take [any] person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.”

Watchmen date back to pre-Colonial times, having been established in London as far back as 1233 when it was ordained that Watchmen be hired to provide security to the city. That policy carried over to America when the Colonists first began setting there as well.

When the Colonists first began arriving in America they did not have a police force to protect them. Did you know that as far back as 1631 the city of Boston hired Watchmen to patrol the streets; looking for criminals and other potential threats to the community? New York and Philadelphia also hired Watchmen to serve their communities. Even when Boston established a regular police force sometime around 1830 the Watchmen still served as an auxiliary force to alert the community of danger. That practice continued until the practice of hiring Watchmen was later abolished.

Some of that may have been due to the fact that Boston was a commercial shipping center and many of the business there hired private security to protect the goods they were sending and receiving. Of course, they passed the cost for these security officers onto the public, for it was in the general public good they said. This probably is the basis upon which a taxpayer funded police force now rests.

It is somewhat interesting to note that the formation of actual full-time police departments in the cities of Boston and New York came about due to the massive influx of German and Irish immigrants; as they brought with them different cultures and beliefs as the English and Dutch settlers who had originally established those communities. It is said that the conflicting beliefs of the two groups led to a rise in the crime rate, which forced the cities into establishing full time police departments to deal with it; but that is neither here nor there for the purpose of this article.

As the Bible says, the job of the Watchman is to sound the trumpet, i.e. alert the people of danger. Did you know that during the period that saw America go from 13 British Colonies to 13 free and independent States, that not everybody was involved in the process; and that there were some who actively supported the Crown; while others even signed up to fight alongside the Redcoats against their fellow Colonists?

Even back then it all boiled down to one thing; whether people were loyal to a system of government or loyal to the cause of defending their liberty AGAINST government. Of course there were also those, just as there are today, who didn’t care one way or the other; they were the apathetic part of society that would deal with whatever came, not caring one way or the other.

There were some in the Colonies to whom liberty was their most prized possession; above and beyond life itself. After all, Patrick Henry did say, “Give me liberty or give me death.” It was men like Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, just to name a few, for whom liberty was more important than status among their peers, or fear of being ridiculed by their peers. It could be said that those men were the Watchmen of Liberty; for they were the ones who took the necessary measures to defend and protect it…even at the risk of being hung for treason.

You may have heard of one of these Watchmen for Liberty; Paul Revere. It was he, along with William Dawes, and Samuel Prescott who rode that fateful night of April 18, 1775, warning that the British were coming to confiscate the arms stored at Lexington and Concord; alerting the people to rise up and defend them.

I wonder, how would people react, or respond, if a concerned citizen were to run down the streets of one of our cities today, yelling, “The BATF are coming, the BATF are coming.” Would the people of America today rise up and stand their ground against the illegal confiscation of privately owned firearms? I doubt it…

Getting back to the issue at hand, if you were to read the Declaration of Independence you would find a long laundry list of grievances against the King of England. Yet the Declaration of Independence was not a spur of the moment document, unlike how legislation such as the Patriot Act was passed; in the heat of anger over the events of 9/11.

No, the Declaration of Independence was a last ditch effort to retain the liberty the Colonists felt was being taken from them by their government. They had petitioned, (what we would today call writing letters) to their government; pleading that it respect their rights – all to have their petitions met with silence or further violations.

Yet it was the Watchmen of liberty who first raised their voices in opposition to the laws being enacted that violated their most sacred rights. James Madison would write about this spirit of resistance years later in his Memorial and Remonstrance, stating, “The free men 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.”

Who were these men? Well let’s see, there was, of course, Patrick Henry, who when he boldly spoke out against the Stamp Act was accused of treason by his fellow Virginians in the House of Burgesses. Of course, with the boldness of a lion Mr Henry replied, “If this be treason…make the most of it.”

Then there was Samuel Adams, the rabble rouser and supposed leader of the Son’s of Liberty. Ya’ll know about them right; they’re the ones who rowed out into Boston Harbor and dumped all that tea into the water. How dare they commit such a wanton act of civil disobedience?

I bet you’ve never heard about this man though; James Otis whose arguments against Writs of Assistance were the primary reason we now have a 4th Amendment to the Constitution. You see, Mr. Otis felt that a man’s property should be free from random searches and seizures, and that’s what Writs of Assistance authorized the government to perform. So he spoke out against them; using his brilliant legal mind to oppose them in court.

There were others, many others, who spoke out against the crimes against their rights being committed by their government, and they all played a vital role in lighting the fuse that led to the Colonies seeking to sever the ties which bound them to a government that believed it had the right to bind them in all cases whatsoever.

It wasn’t necessarily the laws themselves that the Colonies were resisting, it was the authority of their government to enact those laws to begin with that rubbed them the wrong way. That is why the Declaration of Independence clearly states that it was the political bonds which had tied the Colonies and England together that were being severed. They never forgot who they were or where they came from; they only chose to break free from a government that no longer respected their rights as freemen.

Are you truly that incapable of seeing that the government you live under today also believes it has the power and authority to bind YOU in all cases whatsoever? Why do you tolerate it? Why do you participate in electing people to it when none of that ever changes? Sure, your taxes may go up or down depending upon who gets elected; more jobs may be created under one administration than another; fewer laws might be passed which you oppose, but in the end the loss of your liberty and rights marches on regardless of who sits in those seats of power.


I know this is going to upset and offend some, but it needs to be said. You do know that up until 1775 the resistance to the Kings authority was, for the most part, peaceful; aside from incidents like the tarring and feathering of a few tax collectors and the ransacking of the governor’s mansion in Boston. It wasn’t until they came for their guns that things progressed from civil disobedience to shots being fired.

Sure, the King may have given orders to maintain order in Boston, but who was it that carried out those orders; sought to confiscate the arms stored at Lexington and Concord? Why, it was the Kings law enforcers; the Redcoats.

And who do you think will be the ones who come after our guns today if laws are passed saying we must turn them in? Do you think your Congress Critter will pay you a personal visit, saying, “Please sir, we need you to hand over your weapons.” No, it will be law enforcement that knocks on your door at 2 a.m., demanding that you surrender your weapons. And if you do not comply, they will arrest you. And if you resist arrest, you may be shot.

Helluva way to serve and protect if you ask me.

I know, police serve a vital function in the community, but each and every sworn officer also has a conscience and a sacred duty to respect and protect the rights of the people they serve; and when they blindly follow orders without concern for those rights they become jack booted thugs who do not deserve to be obeyed.

Let me ask you something. What good would any law be without an enforcing mechanism by which the people could be forced to obey it? After all, laws are just words on a piece of paper, and if they had any binding authority I could command you to stand up and resist your government and you would have to obey…right?

I posed this question on Facebook the other day and someone said that peer pressure plays a big role in people obeying laws; they don’t want their family, their friends, their co-workers to think badly of them, so they blindly obey the law so as not to rock the boat; be an outcast. That may be true, to a certain extent, but if you ask me it only shows how truly spineless some people are.

I’m not saying I’m part of some kind of underground subversive group like those that called themselves Son’s of Liberty, but at least I can see the danger of giving government all this power over our lives, and I speak out about it to a people who seem utterly incapable of comprehending the impending danger that lies in the not too distant future if they DO NOT WAKE UP!

I truly believe that were the actual Son’s of Liberty alive today they would call me a PUSSY, or words to that effect because I don’t have the courage to take the steps they did to secure their liberty. If they would say that about me, I wonder what choice words they would have for you.

After all, Sam Adams did say, “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.”

It was men like Adams, Henry, Jefferson, Otis and many more that made America great, and America won’t be great again, (no matter who you elect) until it sees a resurgence in men like that.

But until that happens, I’ll be here, serving as a Watchman, warning of the impending danger – even if nobody listens. For as the Bible says; their blood shall be upon them. I have been sounding the trumpet, but nobody can hear me over their TV’s their smartphones, their football, or whatever else it is that keeps their minds anesthetized.

But whether you hear me or not, whether you heed my warnings or not, I have done my job; and when slavery and servitude comes to America it will be upon your shoulders that the blame rests…not mine. I will die knowing that I tried to warn the people, but most of them just wouldn’t listen.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Ignore Me At Your Own Peril

Well Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted leader of an underage prostitution ring for rich and famous clients, is dead of an apparent suicide…or is he? Already the conspiracy theories are beginning to come out that he isn’t actually dead, along with photos of his corpse showing distinct differences between the ears and nose of the deceased and living Epstein. Who knows? Maybe this is just another diversion to keep our minds occupied on this scandal so they can slip something by us without our knowledge, or maybe it is just their way of keeping us entertained until the next ‘big’ scandal or mass shooting. Like I said, who knows?

I told a couple people I know that Epstein would live long in prison, that he’d be found dead of suicide eventually – I think I may have even said he would die of an assisted suicide; meaning he’d be murdered to prevent him from spilling the beans on certain higher ups in our government, and in the government of Great Britain. I was called a conspiracy nut for my prediction. Well now that it’s come true, what does that make those who did not believe me?

Of course our government has promised to get to the bottom of this, putting its full faith in the Justice Department and the FBI to bring the truth to light – just like they did in the aftermaths of Waco and Ruby Ridge I suppose.

I find it absolutely hilarious how both sides of the political spectrum insult each other and cheer for their respective news agency. The left absolutely hates FOX News while the right rants and raves about how CNN is so far left that they have been called the Clinton News Network. If people would just put aside their own prejudices, their own biases, and take a few steps back and look at both news agencies, they’d see that all they do is act as cheerleaders for the policies of either the Democrat or Republican parties. Neither of them provide their viewers with all the facts, and neither of them question the authority of government to do 99.9% of the things it does. They are there to simply sow discord between those who align themselves behind the two major political parties; that’s all they are there for.

Do you really think you are being told the truth when you tune into your favorite news channel to watch the evening news? I once read that the best lies are those that contain an element of the truth. I suppose the only question is how much of what you are being told is the truth and how much is utter fabrication, or spin?

Most people, deep down, want to trust others to tell them the truth and it is only when they have been lied to over and over again that they realize that everything that comes out of some people’s mouths is a lie.

I don’t know, am I jaded, cynical, or do I just live in a Fox Mulder world where I trust no one and have to verify things for myself before I will believe them? All I know is that when I watch the TV news, (which is rarely), I get the feeling like someone has taken 5 gallons of water and tossed in one cube of chicken flavoring and told me I was eating chicken soup. My bullshit detector is fine tuned to identify the bias and spin that passes for news, and I become almost physically ill watching it. It is truly a testimony to how well indoctrinated people have become that they can sit through a 30 minute news broadcast, swallowing everything they are being told, without vomiting all over the floor.

Although I don’t blame them, (at least not directly), it still angers me that people cannot see that their beliefs and sentiments are being played like a well tuned violin, that they are, and have been indoctrinated and manipulated by a system which produces people who obey without question, and do not question what they are told. The truth, they don’t know or care about that; they only want news and propaganda which support and sustain the political bias that they have become indoctrinated into supporting.

It all begins when we send our kids off to public schools where we believe they are being prepared to live their lives as contributing members of society. Sure, they may be given the skills, the knowledge to run the machines and factories, or flip burgers if that be the case, but they certainly aren’t being taught to think…to question things. They are taught WHAT TO THINK, not HOW TO THINK…and there is a HUGE difference!

For cryin’ out loud, our school system has our kids for 12 years, and that’s more than enough time to mold their minds into obedient worker drones who do not question what they are told. Our kids are innocent and pure when we send them off to these schools, which sadly are filled with the products of their own creation who wouldn’t recognize the truth if it came to them in the mail directly from good ole Uncle Sam himself.

There is so much truth to that supposed quote by Lenin, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” The thing is it does not take a radical shift in what is being taught to introduce a major shift in society; you only have to get the ball rolling off one track and onto another; once that has been accomplished the ball continues down its new path of its own accord and the system becomes self-perpetuating.

For instance, how many people in this country think we have a democracy? Where did that idea come from when the evidence clearly proves that our Founders hated and despised democracies? The idea had to come from somewhere, and once it was spoken it was repeated, and repeated, and repeated again until it became the accepted belief. But that does not make it true; it only means that the majority of the people in this country believe a lie.

Try telling people that they believe a lie and you are apt to get the stupid cow look, or be accused of being some kind of a radical or extremist. I mean, if we can be fooled into believing something as simple as the form which our system of government is supposed to take, what else can we be fooled into believing? I have found that the bigger the lie you are trying to dispel, the greater the resistance you will get from those who believe it. The Civil War is a perfect example; no matter how much evidence you provide that it was not about slavery, the people have been so well indoctrinated that their brains simply can’t process the truth, and they will fight you tooth and nails; hurling all manner of insults and names at you.

All of this can be traced back to that simple fact that our kids haven’t been taught the truth, or to question things for themselves; to seek out the truth on their own. Instead, they have been taught to accept that what they were told IS the truth, and to base all their beliefs upon that truth; which is, in fact, based upon lie built upon another lie. Getting to the truth is like peeling an onion; it takes peeling back one layer to reveal the next layer, the whole time you suffer from the process; but instead of your eyes tearing up, the suffering comes in the form of Cognitive Dissonance.

Let me ask you something. When you went through school, no matter whether you graduated last year or 10-20 years ago, how much history and civics were you taught? How much did you HATE those subjects because they were dry and boring? Regardless of how you felt about them, they formed the basis of your understanding of what our country stood for, and the purpose for which our government was supposed to serve.

Don’t you, therefore, think that you were entitled to the truth…no matter how unkind it was to our country or our government? How many people can claim, as Patrick Henry did, “For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

In 1788 Noah Webster, the father of American dictionaries, wrote, “But every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country; he should lisp the praise of liberty, and of those illustrious heroes and statesmen, who have wrought a revolution in her favor.

A selection of essays, respecting the settlement and geography of America; the history of the late revolution and of the most remarkable characters and events that distinguished it, and a compendium of the principles of the federal and provincial governments, should be the principal school book in the United States. These are interesting objects to every man; they call home the minds of youth and fix them upon the interests of their own country, and they assist in forming attachments to it, as well as in enlarging the understanding.”

How many of you can say that is what you were taught in school, rather than the mere repetition and remembering of names and dates of certain events? How many of you believe that simply because slaves were used on the big plantations in the South to manage and harvest the crops that the South was responsible for slavery? I suppose it wouldn’t matter to you that the author of the Declaration of Independence laid the blame for slavery at the feet of King George III, or that those who drafted the Constitution sidestepped the issue of abolishing slavery forever simply because they knew that to attempt to do so would doom their precious national government to defeat, or that the vaunted Supreme Court, whose every ruling people wait for with baited breath, held that slavery WAS legal under the Constitution; therefore if the Civil War WAS fought over slavery, then the South was right and the North was wrong. How many of you know all that?

Could it be that you don’t know any of that because our schools have failed us? I have written numerous lengthy letters to the Superintendant of schools about garbage that our kids are being taught, and not once have they ever deemed to reply to my comments. They seem to believe that they are above the public, not answerable to them. Well, if only one angry parent speaks out, they may as well be correct in their assumption. But, if hundreds…thousands of angry parents spoke out, then maybe, MAYBE they would begin to listen. But that is dependent upon the parents knowing the truth as well; which circles right back around to that quote by Lenin, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

How does all that tie into the news media? Well, actually it’s quite simple. The schools are a breeding ground for producing obedient little worker drones. The media is the entity which then controls the direction our rulers want society to go. They manipulate and control the news and they shove anti-American, or ant-moral, (or Christian if you will) values upon us in the films and TV shows we watch; until they become accepted and embraced by society.

You still don’t think the news media intentionally lies to us? Well Noam Chomsky, the historian/political activist, once wrote, “The media want to maintain their intimate relation to state power. They want to get leaks, they want to get invited to the press conferences. They want to rub shoulders with the Secretary of State, all that kind of business. To do that, you’ve got to play the game, and playing the game means telling their lies, serving as their disinformation apparatus.”

Unfortunately, it’s far worse than that. The system controls the news media, and has for quite some time. You may as well compare the news media to Orwell’s Ministry of Truth; the truth being whatever the government wants you to believe.

In 1917 Congressman Oscar Calloway delivered a speech to Congress in which he stated, “In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States, and a sufficient number of them, to control generally the policy of the daily press….They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.

An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper, to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature, considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.”

So, it would appear that big business owns and operates the news media. But, are they the ones who write the news you get, or is that news given to them by someone else, someone with more malevolent intent? Well let’s see…

In 1971 Congress held a series of hearings and in one of those hearing Senator Frank Church, a Democrat believe it or not, representing the State of Idaho, said, “I thought that it was a matter of real concern that planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad came home, and were circulated here, and believed here, because this would mean the CIA could manipulate the news in the United States by channeling it through some foreign country.”

During those hearings the CIA was questioned, “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA for contributing to a major circulation of American journalists?” The CIA then responded, “We do have people who submit pieces to American journalists.” Meaning, in some instances the CIA was writing the news for us.

How many of you have seen the movie Good Morning Vietnam, starring Robin Williams? Remember how those two look alike army goons would only allow Adrian Cronauer to report what they authorized, and how he got into trouble for reporting a story that was supposed to have been suppressed? I imagine that takes place far more often than people realize, yet they still trust the news media to report the truth.


Aldous Huxley, author of the dystopian novel Brave New World, once said, “In their propaganda today’s dictators rely for the most part on repetition, supression and rationalization – the repetition of catchwords which they wish to be accepted as true, the supression of facts which they wish to be ignored, the arousal and rationalization of passions which may be used in the interests of the Party or the State. As the art and science of manipulation come to be better understood, the dictators of the future will doubtless learn to combine these techniques with the non-stop distractions which, in the West, are now threatening to drown in a sea of irrelevance the rational propaganda essential to the maintenance of individual liberty and the survival of democratic institutions.”

I’m telling you right now, if that doesn’t frighten you, then you are beyond redemption.

And finally, how do they know if their propaganda and rhetoric have taken hold? Well, to quote former CIA director William Casey, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

But how do they know what we believe? Well they can tell by how we vote for one thing. Who we support for office goes a long ways towards determining if we have fallen for their lies and manipulation; as does which laws we support the passage of and which we oppose.

For instance, all this ridiculous talk of how just one more gun law will make us safer from crime…until the next time there is a mass shooting and then they propose ANOTHER gun law to do what the last one failed to do. If people cannot see that they are nibbling away at our right to keep and bear arms, a bit at a time, then they are blind, or stupid; I haven’t decided which one it is yet.

Yet to quote Noah Webster again, in a piece he wrote entitled An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Webster states, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

All these laws which infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms are leading us directly down the pathway to what Patrick Henry feared when he rose his voice in opposition to the Constitution, saying, “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?”

Oh, but Neal, you said revolution, therefore YOU must be bad, you must be an extremist who wants to topple our government. Well, according to Title 18, Section 2385 of the United States Code, anyone who knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty or necessity of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States is a criminal.

Hmm, I suppose that means that if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, and were to author the Declaration of Independence, he could be sentenced to 20 years in federal prison. But then again Jefferson also said that the law is often but the tyrants will. So I suppose if government has become tyrannical, and wished to maintain its power, it would criminalize the saying of things that called for the destruction or dismantling of that government. But hell, that’s nothing new; Abraham Lincoln did the same thing during the Civil War. Oh, but that’s another inconvenient fact your schools did not teach you.

You may think your government does not care about what you think, but you’d be wrong. They realize how tenuous and thin their control over the people is. If every citizen were to rise up against them there isn’t a thing they could do about it. So they watch for subtle hints that there may be trouble brewing; much like a spider sits in its web and is aware of the slightest vibration to the strands the tell that food has arrived.

So they watch us, they listen to what we’re saying; all under the guise of keeping us safe from terrorism of course. Watch the movie Snowden if you want to see how closely your private lives are. Watch the film Enemy of the State if you want to know easily the can spy upon, or track you. That isn’t fiction, that’s reality; albeit reality that is probably 10-15 years behind their current capabilities.

Going back to 1975, Senator Frank Church, (him again), said the following on an episode of Meet the Press, “The National Security Agency’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A. could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back…. I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”

Well, we’ve gone down that path, and if he’s right, there’s no turning back.

So let me sum all this up so far. From our earliest years we enter into indoctrination centers where we are conditioned to accept what passes for freedom today; a constant stream of entertainment while our real rights slowly vanish. We are then fed lies and bullshit by those professing to tell us the truth; the news media. We are then monitored and surveilled by the NSA to see if their propaganda is effective. Sound about right?

That is why I stand so staunchly opposed to measures to disarm the public; no matter how well intentioned those reasons may be. A disarmed public is a public that is unable to resist tyranny; and if history has taught us anything it is that once the people are disarmed, those who oppose government are quickly eliminated; leaving only the docile sheep who will obediently follow orders.

Whether you like it or not we are the guardians of your rights as much as we are the guardians of our own. If we go, you WILL become slaves to a master you have no ability to resist or question. If you can’t see that then you are not worthy of the freedom that the patriots of 1776 fought to bequeath to you.

You can call me whatever names you want, tin foil hat conspiracy theorist, extremist, radical, domestic terrorist, whatever comes to mind, but I’m only trying to warn you of the danger of unquestioning obedience and loyalty to a system that seeks to control you down to the minutest of details of your lives.

If you think what I’ve written is scary, or paranoid, I leave you with one final quote; this coming from former employee of the State Department William Blum, “No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine.”

Ignore what I say at your own peril…

Oh, and as a side note, in the Bible Jesus tells how the devil is the father of lies, and how those who believe those lies are his children. So, who are you when you believe the lies being taught you in school, or told to you on the news?

Food for thought…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Teetering On the Precipice To Tyranny

I think an overwhelming majority of the people of this country cannot see what is right in front of their faces, even if someone is standing next to them pointing it out for them. I can’t recall the times I’ve been out in public and seen something bizarre and asked the people around me, “Did you see that shit” only to have them look up from their iPhones and say, “What shit man?”

Most Americans simply go about their lives thinking that everything is absolutely normal…safe, and that tomorrow they will wake up and live another day in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Me, on the other hand, I wake up every morning shitting my pants; thinking today could be the day when the hammer falls, when we bury liberty once and for all. You know, the sad thing about it is that I think most people would gladly bend over and let Uncle Sam shove that big ole government dick right up their ass.

Oh, does that offend you? Too bad, I’m beyond caring about your precious feelings. You know, I wouldn’t care if what’s coming would only affect you, but it won’t, it will affect me too; and that’s why I’m so upset. If I could live my life free of the bullshit rules, regulations, taxes, and all the other impositions upon my freedom that society deems politically correct, then I could care less whether you live your life without an ounce of freedom; but unfortunately that’s not how it works. So I’m pissed…MIGHTY PISSED!

I honestly don’t know what people think, do they think tyranny of the kind of Soviet era Russia or Nazi Germany could never happen in America? Do they think that simply because we have a written Constitution and are allowed to vote for our leaders that we are safe from our government ever becoming despotic? My God, most people don’t even know what the Constitution says, and they think a document they’ve never read is going to protect them?

And as for voting, what if the person who gets voted out of office refuses to leave; what are the people going to do if THAT happens? What are the people going to do if government suddenly tells them, “Sorry folks, we feel that the national crisis is such that we will have to temporarily suspend elections until the situation stabilizes”? How many people would be naive enough to think that voting would ever be restored if that were to happen?
I believe it was Edmund Burke who once said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and we, as a country, have been asleep at the wheel for generations.

Do you know how earthquakes happen? There isn’t a sudden massive increase in pressure between tectonic plates that causes them, it is a slow buildup of pressure until the resistance of the plates can no longer hold it; then they snap and the effects are felt on the surface of the Earth. The loss of liberty is similar in that they don’t come for all your rights all at once; they nibble away at them here and there, a bit at a time, until one day you wake up scratching your head, asking yourself, “How the hell did we become slaves to our government?”

I see America at that point right now, right at this very moment; at the point where the pressure finally snaps and we go from a semi-free people to absolute servitude to a system of our own creation. It didn’t happen overnight, and for those who were foolish enough to vote for Trump thinking that he could fix all that is wrong in this country, it won’t be fixed overnight – if it can be fixed at all at this point in the game.

Does that sound pessimistic…cynical? Possibly, but I prefer to think of it as simply being realistic.

People just don’t realize how precarious the situation in this country is right now. They think that because they can go to work, then go home and sip a few suds and watch some TV, that everything will be okay. Of course they are going to let you work, they need to keep the economy going and the tax money you produce. And of course they are going to provide you with all manner of entertainment; it distracts you, keeps you from focusing your attention upon how shitty things have become.

Have you ever watched a really good prize fighter take out an opponent; it truly is an incredible thing to watch. They may throw a few jabs to the face here and there, but they focus on weakening the core muscles so that their opponent begins to drop his guard. Once that happens, and only when that happens, they deliver the knockout punch.

Those who seek to control us have been working on our core values for generations. The media floods our minds with trash that erode our values and our morals. I can remember watching an episode of M.A.S.H. back in the 70’s that drew quite the uproar when Hawkeye Pierce uttered the word bastard during Prime Time TV. Nowadays that wouldn’t even cause people to think twice as their screens are constantly filled with far more offensive garbage.

Our education systems, (if you dare call them that), do not teach our children to think, or provide them with the truth; they teach our kids WHAT TO THINK, and give them THE GOVERNMENT VERSION OF THE TRUTH. I honestly think Orwell would be horrified at what our educational systems have become; localized indoctrination centers which were part of a national Ministry of Truth. Oh, and in case anyone does not know, one of Orwell’s Party Slogans in 1984 was Ignorance Is Strength. Well, that certainly explains why Americans still think they live in the strongest, mightiest nation on the planet-because they sure as hell are ignorant!

Like I said, this process did not happen overnight, it has been done incrementally, a bit here and a bit there, so slow and gradual that we barely noticed it was happening; if at all. But the change has taken place nonetheless, and now most people are incapable of seeing that there is anything seriously wrong in their country.

Lately I have been wondering, which is the bigger curse; to be blind to the events transpiring right before my eyes, or to be able to see them, but be unable to get others to see them as well. I mean, what would be worse if you were a sheep or a cow and you were in the chute leading to the slaughterhouse; to not know you were about to die, or to know, but be unable to escape your certain death? That’s how I sometimes feel.

The reason I think we’re at a crucial stage in the game, (if you can call the preservation or loss of liberty a game) is because of all the talk about Red Flag Laws that so many people are showing support for to prevent future mass shootings. It boggles my mind that people are going after the people who might pose a threat rather than looking at the underlying causes of WHY these people do what they do.

I suppose I wasn’t the only one, but I grew up in a small town where we had an open campus at high school. The parking lot across the street from school was filled with pickup trucks; most of which had rifle racks in the rear window that held either a shotgun or a hunting rifle. Yet we never, and I mean NEVER, had a school shooting. How could that possibly be if the availability of guns is the problem? When I went to high school students settled their disputes with their firsts. Sure, we might get suspended for fighting, but we took our lumps rather than running out to our trucks and grabbing a gun so we could gun down those who tormented us.

The problem isn’t guns, or the ease by which they are acquired; the problem is a decay in the morals and values of the people who have access to them. You could take away every single gun in circulation and the people would just find another way to harm others; if that is what they wanted to do. If you can’t see that, then you’re a fucking idiot!

Look at the Bible for crying out loud; Cain didn’t have access to a gun, he bashed his brother’s skull in with a rock! People have been killing other people long before gunpowder and guns made their appearance, and people will continue killing other people long after guns are gone from the picture…if that ever happens that is. Oh, and in case you didn’t know, if the government does manage to take away all OUR guns, they will still get to keep theirs.

Which is why we have the 2nd Amendment – to make sure THAT situation never happens!!!

To use a modern analogy people might understand, if we were to be totally disarmed, and we wanted to resist tyranny, it would be like a guy stepping into a boxing ring with nothing but tennis shoes and running shorts going up against Iron Man. How could we hope to defeat such an opponent when we were woefully outgunned?

Patrick Henry warned of this very scenario BEFORE the Constitution even went into effect, “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?”

Yet people today have become so indoctrinated, so ignorant, that they are calling for measures to hasten the moment when they are no longer capable of putting up any kind of fight against a despotic government – just because they want to feel safe when they leave their homes; they don’t want themselves, or their children from becoming victims to the next mass shooter.

Well neither do I dammit! But you don’t hear me calling for measures that take away my right to defend myself! You can call me whatever names you want, but I don’t think the way to prevent mass shootings is to create an environment where there are plenty of defenseless victims; I think the way to prevent MASS shootings is to ensure that there are a sufficient number of people who have guns on them who can gun down these animals before it becomes another MASS shooting.

Why do you think it is these mass shooters target malls, schools, churches, and nightclubs instead of gun shows and police stations? Could it possibly be that they’d be gunned down before they got off 3 shots; so they pick a venue where they know most of the people are unable to shoot back?

And yet America’s answer to this epidemic of gun violence is to take away our guns, or identify those who might pose a future threat; and take THEIR guns away before they can commit a crime. Ever see the movie The Minority Report, with Tom Cruise? You ought to, as it deals with the concept of future crimes; arresting an individual based upon precognition of an impending crime. That’s what this country is heading towards; depriving people of their unalienable right without any justification other than the fact that they have somehow been identified as a POSSIBLE threat to society.

If I may be so bold to ask, who in the hell gets to sit there and identify these threats? For you Republicans, your illustrious leader has called upon the software industry to create an algorithm that can identify these possible threats. Oh, that’s nice, so now we get to have our rights violated because of a computer program? What happened to being able to confront our accuser? I’d pay good money to watch you argue with a bank of supercomputers, asking them why you were targeted for gun confiscation.

But again, this change in our country has been gradual. How often have I gotten form letters in response to my petitions to my Congress Critters for a redress of grievances instead of an actual reply attempting to provide the Constitutional justification for their actions? They don’t have to answer to me, they are above me and I am some pissant drone; a mere speck on the canvas of the picture that they ignore. So, if they can ignore a few angry people now and then with impunity, what’s to stop them from putting into place a computerized system that identifies possible threats without our ever being able to question WHY we were labeled a threat?

For crying out loud, in the past month California alone has denied over 10,000 permits for the purchase of ammunition. That would not have been possible had the voters not supported a measure which required a permit for EVERY purchase of ammo in the State. Those who were denied the right to buy bullets weren’t told why, they were just told, “Sorry, your permit was denied.” So basically, some bureaucrat somewhere was sitting in some office, rubber stamping a big DENIED across permits based upon what; his evaluation of the person applying for permission to exercise a right?

Just yesterday I wrote a pretty sarcastic rant about gun control; addressed to some idiot financial columnist who took the stance that the 2nd Amendment does not give us the right to own guns for our own defense. I’m still simmering over the fact that my own brother was the one who shared that article to Facebook, but that’s another issue altogether.

But since then I’ve been doing some research, and last night I ran across something I’d like to share with ya’ll.

Did you know that BEFORE the Constitution was written each State, or almost all of them, went about establishing some form of State government for themselves? I mean this happened almost before the ink had dried on the Declaration of Independence! Did you know that these fledgling States included Bills of Rights within their State Constitutions? Did you know that almost all of them contained wording that said it was the right of the people to be armed; not only for the defense of the state, but for their own personal defense?

Of course you didn’t know that, it does not fit in well with the government’s narrative that they can disarm us if they think we pose a threat to society, or their power over us, (but I’ll touch upon that in a bit).

For the sake of keeping this short, I’ll provide but one of these passages within the various Bills of Rights introduced by the States; this one coming from the State of Pennsylvania; “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.”

There’s no mention of a permit there, only the fact that it was the right of the people to be armed for their own personal defense. This was not something the government gave the people, it was a right the people were saying their government could not interfere with. That’s how Bills of Right’s work, they tell government to keep their fucking hands off the rights mentioned within them.

Now that I have shared that with you, I want to share something else with you; something that really ought to rattle a few cages. In an issue of the Pennsylvania Evening Post, dated October 31, 1776, an editorial was run which stated, “The Bill of Rights should always include the natural rights of every freeman, and the essential principles of free government…This bill should be unalterable. The least violation of any part of it, whether by legislature―the courts of law―or the people, should always be punished as high treason against the state.”

Holy Shit, let’s read that last sentence again, “The least violation of any part of it, whether by legislature―the courts of law―or the people, should always be punished as high treason against the state.” The least violation of a right huh? Does that mean that the requirement that I apply for a permit count as a violation? What about limits as to what type of arms I am allowed to own, or the capacity of the magazine those arms uses?

And my God, those violations are to be considered as HIGH TREASON! Do any of you happen to know what the punishment for treason is? I do, it’s death.
So let me get this straight, my right it keep and bear arms existed before government and the Bill of Rights only identifies that right as one which the government, the courts, or the court of public opinion, are unable to infringe upon; and if they do, they are guilty of TREASON and can be executed?

And yet people say that people like me are the crazy ones because we say we will shoot back at anyone who tries to take our guns away. Sure, we may die in the process, but we will be the victims of murderous jack booted thugs and tyrants, not the criminal lawbreakers you think we are.

Sorry to all you cops out there who might read this, but following orders, or obeying the law is not sufficient justification for the deprivation of the rights of a single individual; the Nuremburg Trials settled that issue years ago. So you may want to think twice if you are ordered to go confiscate someone’s arms simply because they MAY pose a threat. After all, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Numerous States already have some form of Red Flag laws on the books, California being one of them. For instance, a felon can be denied the right to own guns; even though they have served the prescribed time for their crime. Also, those with restraining orders against them, or accused of spousal abuse can be denied the right to own guns.

Can you imagine if this became a national program; where anyone that anyone else feared could be targeted, and have their guns taken from them? What if you don’t like what you’re reading right now, what if it frightens or offends you; would you dial up your friendly 911 dispatcher and say, “Hey, there’s this Neal Ross guy who writes these anti government articles. I think you ought to go take his guns away.”

What if all I’ve done is express my opinion without harming anyone; is that sufficient grounds to deny me my rights? I wish we could reciprocate this whole Red Flag mentality with freedom of speech; how I could dial 911 and say, “Hey, there’s this idiot I work with, or one of my family members, who keeps talking about things they know nothing about. I think you need to go take away their freedom of speech.”

Oh, but speech doesn’t hurt people Neal. Is that so, then why does my speech frighten YOU so much? Why does the speech of bullies cause you to want to censor internet bullying. You know, I was the victim of bullies in school and there was no one I could run to for comfort. I didn’t go home and shove a pistol into my mouth and pull the trigger, I grew a set of balls and a thick skin and pushed through it; along with a healthy dose of non-pharmaceutical medication. As Rami Malek says in his portrayal of singer Freddie Mercury, “Being human is a condition that requires a little anesthesia.”

What do you think is going to happen if this whole Red Flag law on a nationwide scale get’s implemented; do you think it will run flawless…like all the other government run programs do? Is that why your mail gets lost from time to time, because the government is so dammed efficient?

If you can’t or are unwilling to see this then I suppose you deserve the slavery that’s coming, but if this Red Flag thing becomes a federal law, that eventually they will come after people like me; those who write articles critical of government; those who speak about abolishing the FED and the preservation of liberty. You know, the same people the FBI now considers to be possible domestic terrorists for their patriotic leanings. You know that, don’t you?

But, did you know that WE are the only thing that stands between you and a government that wants total control over your lives. Government knows that most Americans are too preoccupied, or too cowardly to stand up to it. But government also knows that there are many armed patriots out there who act as guardians of the liberty for all those too timid to do it themselves. If government can find a way to disarm, or kill those guardians, what do you think is going to happen to your few remaining freedoms afterwards?

And you stupid motherfuckers, in your infinite wisdom and vast understanding of the nature of our rights, want to hasten that day upon yourselves by supporting laws that make it easier for government to identify and neutralize any threats to its quest for absolute control over your lives.
Brilliant, absolutely fucking brilliant!!!

Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to ensure that there remained a populace that was sufficiently armed so as to be able to resist the encroaching power of government, and shake off that government if it ever got too far out of line…you know, kind of like they did back in 1776.

And in case you have forgotten, the first shots of the American Revolution were fired when the government came to take away their guns. You really ought to keep that in mind before you support any measure that might lead to a 2019 version of Lexington and Concord.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Brett Arends: You Ought to Be Ashamed of Yourself

I find it amazing how two people can grow up under the same roof and end up having entirely different outlooks on things. Take for instance my brother and I; we both grew up around guns and were taught how to safely handle and shoot them at an early age. Then I went off and joined the Air Force and he went and became a Park Ranger. Somewhere along our paths he became a Democrat and I became an anarchist. But with all that, we still had the same upbringing and respect for guns.

So why in the hell would he post an article to Facebook, the general premise of which is that if you ARE NOT in the National Guard the 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to own guns?

The column is entitled What America’s Gun Fanatics Won’t Tell You: The Second Amendment Doesn’t Give You The Right To Own A Gun. It was written by some guy named Brett Arends, and upon looking up his bio it shows that he primarily writes about finances and economics. Maybe Mr. Arends ought to stick to subjects he is familiar with and leave the political commentary alone; for it is obvious he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about this time around.

The only thing this idiot got right about it is in the title; the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT give us the right to own guns. Now before you get all bent out of shape about that let me explain myself.

On April 19, 1775 the Colonists of Boston formed up with their weapons outside Lexington and Concord to meet the oncoming British Redcoats who were intent upon confiscating the arms stored there…and to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock in case you weren’t aware of that part of the story.
What gave those Colonists the right to have the weapons they brought with them, for obviously the 2nd Amendment had not been written yet? I’ll get back to that in a minute, but for a moment I want to speak about something Mr. Arends said in his article.

I don’t know where he gets his information from, or whose Kool Aid he has been drinking, but Mr. Arends had the gall to say, “The Second Amendment is an instrument of government. It’s not about hunting or gun collecting or carrying your pistol into the saloon.” THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT? Where the hell did that come from?

I think it is pretty well established that the Colonists had their own guns when they fought the American Revolution. I mean I don’t think the British just loaned them a few so that it would be a fair fight, do you?

Then, in 1787, some guys got together and said, “Hey, let’s create a national government for this place.” So obviously the right to keep and bear arms predates the Constitution. But there’s more…

In 1788, when Mr. Arends refers to in his article by quoting from Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, the drafters and supporters of this Constitution found that they were meeting quite a bit of resistance to their proposed system of government. A lot of that resistance came from those who felt that the lack of a bill of rights was a major flaw, and that the government they were trying to institute might get the idea that it could violate those rights with impunity.

So they promised their opponents to introduce a bill of rights if they would agree to ratify the Constitution. Had that NOT happened there is a good chance our current system of government may never have been put into effect; that we would still be under the Articles of Confederation, (which if you ask me, would have been a good thing; but that’s beside the point for the purpose of this rebuttal).

So this new government goes into effect, and the States send along long lists of proposed amendments to the Constitution, which then were reduced by James Madison into 12 proposals for the States to consider; ten of which received the necessary 3/4 vote and became the first ten amendments; or the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights was ratified 2 years after the Constitution, on December 18, 1791. So let me see if I have this chronologically right here. First we have guys with guns fighting against their government, and the jack booted thugs who enforced its laws upon them. Then these same guys decide to create a system of government for themselves. Then, once that government is up and running they introduce ten amendments to the document establishing that government; one of which GIVES (?) us the right to own guns?

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t give us diddly squat! That’s right, it doesn’t give us a damned thing we didn’t already have. The 2nd Amendment is a limitation upon the government to infringe upon or violate a pre-existing right.

In attempting to prove his point Mr Arends quotes two sources in his article, a reference to something Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia said, and a passage from one of Alexander Hamilton’s contributions to the Federalist Papers; I believe it was Federalist #29. That’s it, that’s all the supporting evidence Mr. Arends offers his readers to support his lunacy.

You could say I go overboard with the quotes sometimes, but I like to give my readers a whole lot more than two quotes to chew upon. So let’s see what I can dig up to prove that Mr. Arends has his head so far up his ass he can’t tell whether it is night or day.

I wonder, is he aware that the Bill of Rights has a preamble, just like the Constitution does? Does he know that this preamble states, “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…”

So right there we see that the Bill of Rights do not grant us anything, they impose restrictions upon what our government can do; meaning they place the rights contained therein within a lockbox; beyond the scope of legislative and judicial authority. In modern day lingo that means, “Hey Uncle Sam, the rights listed in these 10 amendments are off limits to you; keep your bloody hands off them!”

As to Mr. Arends claim that the right to own guns is tied to service in the militia, or National Guard, I also have a few things to prove that he is wrong about that as well. First of all, the same Supreme Court Justice he quotes from, Justice Scalia, was a part of the majority ruling on the case of D.C. v. Heller; in which the Court held that the right to own guns was NOT linked to service in the militia, it was an individual right.

How do you explain that Brett? You don’t mind me calling you Brett, do you? After all, I feel like I know you so well; having run into the same garbage you spew a thousand times before.

But let’s, just for the sake of pretends, imagine that what Brett says is true; that the right to own guns is irrevocably linked to service in the National Guard. Okay, I’ll bite. If that’s true, then I call for the immediate disarmament of all police officers, county sheriffs, highway patrol, Secret Service Agents, FBI agents, agents of the BATF, DEA, Homeland Security, Park Rangers, and every other enforcer of the law as well. After all, they aren’t serving in the capacity of the militia, are they? So by what right do they carry guns?

Do you see how fucking ridiculous your argument sounds Brett, do you see it?

And since you seem to think that militia service is limited to service in the National Guard, I have a pin to burst that balloon as well. Have you ever read title 10 of the United States Code Brett? Didn’t think so, so let me educate you.

Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 246 outlines the categories of the militia. So that out to prove helpful in determining what constitutes the militia, don’t you think? Let’s see what Title 10 says, shall we?

10 USC §246 Militia Composition and Classes:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard
(b) The classes of the militia are—
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I don’t know Brett, but it sure looks to me like every able bodied male over the age of 17 can buy a gun. But let’s see if there are any other references as to what constitutes the militia.

Ever hear of George Mason, Brett? Good ole George was the one who wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, so maybe he might be a good source to go to in order to find out about rights and all that; don’t you think? Well good ole George once asked, “I ask, sir, what is the militia?” He then turns around and answers his own question, “It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”

Again, it sure sounds to me like we the people constitute the militia, and therefore if gun ownership IS linked to militia service, any law that restricts our right to own guns is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

But, since the Supreme Court held that gun ownership isn’t linked to service in the militia, let’s move on; shall we?

So Brett, do you know why they included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights? Obviously not, for you clearly said that, “The Second Amendment is an instrument of government.” No Brett, the Second Amendment is an instrument of the people to limit or restrict our government’s ability to infringe upon the rights listed therein. The Second Amendment was included so that we the people could raise up an army equal to, or greater than, any standing army our government might raise to tyrannize or oppress us.

You know Brett, a long time before your precious Justice Scalia was even a glint in his daddy’s eye another Supreme Court Justice told us what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Maybe you’ve heard of him; his name is Joseph Story and he wrote a lengthy book explaining his interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. While I may not agree with everything Justice Story says, he did get the part about the 2nd Amendment right.

Do you want to hear what he had to say Brett? Too bad, I’m gonna share it with you anyway, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” (Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833) Oh, and Brett, I like to leave my readers with the source material for my quotes whenever I can. You may want to begin doing that in the future.

Another thing Brett, you seem to be keen on the idea of government having all these powers to do all these great things for the country, and for the people; which is all well and good, but are those things among the powers originally delegated to the government by the Constitution?

Hmm, since your also such a fan of the Federalist Papers, let’s see what they have to say about that? In Federalist #45 James Madison writes, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” Boy, that doesn’t sound very promising for your premise, does it?

Madison then goes on to say, “Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” Hmm, so let me see if I got this right; the powers of the federal government were limited, while those held by the States were almost boundless. Damn Brett, it doesn’t sound promising for your federal government, does it?

Let’s see what else Mr. Madison had to say. Well, to begin with he said, “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.” So apparently those are the areas the federal authority was to extend to…external objects.

But then Madison lets the hammer fall, “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.”

Yowza Brett, it sure sounds like your precious federal government couldn’t extend its authority beyond the border of a State to interfere with the operation of that State or the lives, liberties and property of we the people. How in the world, then, do you explain all these pesky federal laws we are forced to comply with?

I do think that the 2nd Amendment is right, that the security of a free state requires a well regulated militia; and boy we are anything but free under this oppressive government you seem to admire so much. You know what I think Brett? I think we the people ought to take a lesson from our Founders, you know the ones who stood their ground at Lexington and Concord, and we ought to rise up and oppose any, and all, who would enforce those federal laws upon us. You know, grow a spine and do some patriotic shit other than stand with our hands over our hearts when someone recites the Pledge of Allegiance.

Can you imagine Brett, what would happen if thousands and thousands of armed patriots did what their ancestors did at Lexington and Concord, and told the jack booted thugs of Uncle Sam to take a hike; that their laws did not apply to them? Can you imagine how glorious a day that would be Brett? God, it brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it! Oh, by the way Brett, that part about it being a glorious day was only a repetition of what Samuel Adams said when he heard about how the Colonists had stood their ground against the Redcoats at Lexington and Concord.

You see Brett, that’s what it means to be a patriot; to stand up to those who would infringe upon your God-given rights. It’s people like you who have things all ass backwards. You people seem to think that government grants us certain rights, and therefore can dictate the limitations upon those rights. It simply doesn’t work that way. We had our rights long before our government was created. In fact, one of the reasons we created that government was to better secure those rights.

And when government no longer serves that purpose it is our duty, our right to rise up and shake off that government and institute one that will leave our rights alone. If that means I have to repeat myself over and over again to ass clowns like you, until I’ve lost my voice, I suppose that is what I will do. But I refuse to remain silent while idiots like you publics this utter nonsense, that otherwise innocent people will read thinking it is the truth.

You really ought to be ashamed of yourself Brett, your research skills suck and you are such an ass kisser. I bet if you were alive in 1776 you would have been a British Loyalist. Come on, don’t deny it, you know it’s true…

Oh, and Matt, you should have known better than to share this garbage where I’d see it…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Government Isn’t The Problem, People Are!

“But what is government but the greatest reflection on human nature?”
~James Madison~
(Federalist 51)

Albert Einstein once said, “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know.” Generally speaking, we as Americans are a very ignorant people. Although I don’t always get involved in their conversations, I often listen to people talk about certain issues and the things that come out of their mouths cause me to ask myself if they even have a brain inside their heads.

According to an article published in Business Insider, America ranks 27th in the world in both health care AND education. I hear people talk about things such as wars in foreign countries, yet they can’t find the countries their discussing on a map. I hear people talk about politics and government and they’ve never read the Constitution.

We, and again I’m generalizing, like to think we’re smart, smarter than those who founded this country over 200 years ago. In some instances Americans are smarter than their counterparts 200 some odd years ago. There were probably those back then who were illiterate, who didn’t know much about math or science, but then they didn’t shape our country the way that men like Thomas Jefferson and the other leaders of the Revolution did either.

In 1962 President John F. Kennedy hosted a dinner at the White House for 49 recipients of the Nobel Prize. That is a collection of the smartest minds in the world all at one location, wouldn’t you say? During that dinner Kennedy remarked, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent and human knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

Jefferson began his formal education at an early age, and by the age of 15 he could read and write in Greek, Latin and French. Then he went on to study science, philosophy, history, metaphysics, and other subjects such as agriculture and horticulture.

We, as Americans, like to think we’re smart, but our schools are producing graduates who can’t make heads or tails out of what the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution say and mean. That’s primarily because we are not teaching our children to think; we’re teaching them what to think – and there is a HUGE difference.

I wonder, how many of our high school graduates have ever heard of, let alone read Plutarch, Plato, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius, Thucydides, or John Locke? Yet Jefferson studied them all, and they helped shape him into the man he was. It is written that by the time Jefferson entered into the public arena he had acquired enough knowledge to have been awarded four PhD’s.

Yet we think we’re smarter than he was; know more about politics and systems of government than he did? What, are we nuts? I can only hope to acquire a fraction of what was stored in his mind; yet people tell me that I’m smart? Maybe in comparison to my peers I’m smart, but in comparison to Thomas Jefferson I’m merely a speck of dust riding on his coat tails.

What separates me from my peers is that I care about acquiring more knowledge, while most don’t. People constantly tell me that they don’t have the time to study like I do, or that the things I write about are too complex for them to understand.

Those are bullshit excuses!

There are 24 hours in every day, and I have chores I must attend to just like everyone else. But, in my free time you won’t find me glued to a TV watching mindless drivel; you’ll find me buried in a book, or online searching for documents from our country’s past. You think the stuff I read was easy to understand? No, it wasn’t; but I read it over, and over, and over until it began to make sense.

I’ve said it probably a dozen or so times, your mind is like a muscle; if you don’t use it then it will atrophy. But, if you do use it then thinking, understanding complex ideas, becomes much easier. Now I can read Locke, Plato, Rousseau, Thoreau, and they make sense to me.

The thing about knowledge is that it dispels myths. Thomas Paine once described that as follows, “Ignorance is of a peculiar nature: once dispelled, it is impossible to re-establish it. It is not originally a thing of itself, but is only the absence of knowledge; and though man may be kept ignorant, he cannot be made ignorant. The mind, in discovering truth, acts in the same manner as it acts through the eye in discovering objects; when once any object has been seen, it is impossible to put the mind back to the same condition it was in before it saw it.”

Once one learns the truth about something there is no justifying continuing to believe the lie. For instance, if you were to learn what promises were made to those charged with either accepting or rejecting the Constitution, there is no justifying supporting our system of government as it currently exists; for the system we have today is nothing like what was promised to those who made the decision to implement it. Yet people go to the polls thinking that they can change things by voting a few people here and there out of office and replacing them with fresh meat. It doesn’t work that way because people continue to expect the same things from government, and changing a few people out at election time isn’t going to change that!

I had a young woman at work last night tell me that I’m crazy because I would fight any efforts to disarm me made by my government. I respect this woman; she is a good worker and all, but she is also the product of the public indoctrination centers that produce graduates who are taught to not question authority, to obey without question whatever laws their government enacts.

Did those who fought for our independence have that same mentality; did they just sit back and let their government trample all over their rights without any resistance at all? What was the revolution if not the ultimate challenge to the authority of their government to impose its will upon them? Yet I’m the crazy one? Maybe Dresden James was right, “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” But that does not diminish the fact that one of us believes a lie and the other knows the truth.

If you were to be locked in a cage I’m pretty sure you would try to find a way to escape; it’s part of man’s nature to be free. Yet if those who seek to enslave, or imprison you can change your understanding of what it means to be free, then those who have been so indoctrinated will never even know that they are no longer free; they will accept their servitude; all the while thinking they are free because they can hop in their cars and go anywhere, or turn on their TV and watch whatever they want.

But that’s not freedom, not really. Freedom is the ability to do whatever you like just so long as you don’t deny anyone else the right to do the same. Freedom is the ability to live your live as you choose without anyone else telling you what to do. Freedom is the ability to say anything you want without restriction; so long as you do not defame the character of another, (unless of course what you say about them is the truth). Freedom is the ability to enjoy the fruits of your labor without it being confiscated from you in the form of taxes to fund things our government is not authorized to spend that money upon. Freedom is the ability to retreat into your home without fear that the government is watching and listening to you and your most private conversations. Freedom is also the right to defend your life, your property, and your rights against all attacks without fear that YOU will be the one accused of committing a crime.

None of those things exist in America today, yet people have the audacity to say that this is still the land of the free. Yet people still vote, thinking it is the politicians who are corrupt, never realizing that it is the system itself that has become corrupted.

From time to time someone will ask me, “You’re not a Democrat, and you’re not a Republican, so what are you?” In the beginning I used to think of myself as a Constitutionalist; someone who only wanted to return to the original intent of those who instituted the Constitution. Then that changed, and I began thinking of myself as a Libertarian; someone who thought that government should be bare bones minimal; leaving people free to live their lives as they please. Now, I’m borderline anarchist; someone who thinks that government always ends up oppressive and that we’d probably be better off without it.

Again to quote from Paine, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”

Paine wasn’t the only person who ever spoke such sentiments. In 1849 Henry David Thoreau wrote his booklet, Civil Disobedience, in which he says, “I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe- “That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.”

What sets people like me apart from the masses is that we don’t NEED government to live our lives. What has government ever done for me that I couldn’t have done myself? The same could be said for each and every one of you; especially those of you who get all fired up during an election cycle; seeking to put your candidate into office. From my perspective all that you’re doing is attempting to impose your will upon me by putting people into office who have the authority to enact laws, which are then enforced by a standing army consisting of government agents and local law enforcement.

Yet people like me are told that we are dangerous, or to quote Bastiat, “If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that “You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests.”

Maybe that is true, that I would shatter the foundation upon which society rests. But that is only because that foundation is based upon the belief that the needs or wants of society are all that matters when it comes to depriving me of my rights, or that the needs or wants of society are all that matters when it is decided to take from me my property, (income), and redistribute it to those society feels deserve it more than I do. Hell yes I would tear that system down if I could; anyone who truly understood what freedom is would too.

I don’t know if you are capable, but I want you to truly think about what I’m about to say. In his book The Social Contract, Jean Jacques Rousseau writes, “In fact, if there were no earlier agreement, how, unless the election were unanimous, could there be any obligation on the minority to accept the decision of the majority? What right have the hundred who want a master to vote on behalf of the ten who do not? The law of majority-voting itself rests on an agreement, and implies that there has been on at least one occasion unanimity.”

Well Neal, we have an agreement to live under this system of government, and that came when they adopted the Constitution. Is that so? Was there a unanimous vote of approval for that document? I can provide the actual voting records of the various state ratifying conventions to prove that it WAS NOT unanimous.

So by what authority does the government impose its will upon those who chose not to support it? If you wish to support this government, to live under its jurisdiction and obey the laws it enacts, that’s entirely up to you. But by what right do you demand that I must do the same? So long as I respect the lives, property, and liberty of others I should be free to decide whether or not this government has any authority over me or not; unless of course you want to openly admit that you think I should be a slave to a system which I do not consent to.

Here’s another quote that ought to cause you to rethink your position on whether or not to support this system of government, “It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the Constitution—not as I interpret it, but as it is interpreted by those who pretend to administer it—the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is provided by the Constitution itself, shall never be “questioned” as to any disposal they make of them.”

How can you question, or punish those you elect should they abuse their authority? Have you ever spoken to your elected representatives? Can you pick up the phone and have a friendly, or not so friendly, chat with your Congress Critter? If that Congress Critter introduces, or supports a bill that clearly violates your rights, or is unconstitutional, what mode of punishment is at your disposal to make them pay for their crimes?

When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence he didn’t say the way to fix a corrupt government was to vote new people into it, he said it was to alter or abolish that system of government.

But Neal, that’s so radical, so extreme. What about all the benefits the government provides me with; which is why our system is so screwed up. It is not because the people we elect are bad; they are merely a reflection of the people who vote them into office. It is not the government that is the problem, it is what we want government to do that is the problem. If we would just adhere to one simple premise, as stated by Patrick Henry in 1788, then we could begin to turn things around. That premise is, “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.”

But as long as that is ignored, or forgotten, the system of government we have will remain a tool by which one segment of society gets to impose its will upon the remainder of society; with elections being only the transfer of power from one set of tyrants to another.

And if you can’t see that, then Thomas Paine had a few words for you, “When I contemplate the natural dignity of man, when I feel (for Nature has not been kind enough to me to blunt my feelings) for the honour and happiness of its character, I become irritated at the attempt to govern mankind by force and fraud, as if they were all knaves and fools, and can scarcely avoid disgust at those who are thus imposed upon.”

And if one other thing is true, then it is this, “Let us therefore learn while there is yet time, let us learn to do good. Let us raise our eyes to Heaven for the sake of our honor, for the very love of virtue, or, to speak wisely, for the love and praise of God Almighty, who is the infallible witness of our deeds and the just judge of our faults. As for me, I truly believe I am right, since there is nothing so contrary to a generous and loving God as tyranny — I believe He has reserved, in a separate spot in Hell, some very special punishment for tyrants and their accomplices.” (Source: The Politics of Obedience, 1576)

And by accomplice I don’t think he meant just those who make and enforce the laws, I think he meant that those who support a corrupt and tyrannical government at the cost of their freedom…meaning the voting public.

As Thomas Jefferson took for his personal motto, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” I can only assume that the reverse is equally true, “The support of tyrants is disobedience to God.” You might want to reconsider who and what you serve; God or government.

And to quote Forrest Gump, “That’s all I have to say about that…”

Posted in General | Leave a comment

An Entirely Unplanned Rant

The time is near at hand which must determine whether
Americans are to be free men or slaves.

~George Washington~
Address to Continental Army, Aug 27, 1776

I had fully intended NOT to write anything for awhile; I felt that I was repeating myself over and over again and I figured it was time to take a break until something new, something original popped into my head. Then there came these two shootings, one in Dayton, Ohio and the other in El Paso, Texas, and I knew that the cries for tighter gun control would soon follow.

I won’t mention any names, but I’ve had several of my gun owning friends say they will not obey any further gun control laws; that they are done having their right restricted every time some nut case goes off the deep end and shoots up a school, a supermarket, or a nightclub.

I work with people who think that no private citizen should be allowed to own a personal firearm; let alone a small arsenal of them. They constantly ask me how many I own; to which I always reply, ‘Not enough.’ They ask me why I need so many; to which I answer, ‘Why do you need more than one pair of shoes, more than one purse, or more than one screwdriver in your toolbox?’

I’m gonna be blunt here; it’s none of your damned business how many guns I own or why I have more than one. I’m gonna be even blunter; it’s none of the governments business how many guns I own either. After all, they supposedly work for us right? So why can’t we ask them how many guns they have in their arsenal, how many nuclear and biological weapons they have stockpiled away in weapons dumps? You think they’d send you a complete inventory of every single one of their weapons? So why should they know have many we have?

Fuck them. That’s right, you heard me…FUCK THEM!!!

Yet every time I go to purchase a new gun they have to run a background check on me to see if I am eligible to own a firearm, and when I do purchase it that weapon goes into a folder somewhere amidst the bureaucracy with some kind of annotation like: Neal Ross, one Glock .40 caliber, or Neal Ross, one each Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun.

So they know how many guns I have but I can’t just waltz in to the local police of sheriffs department and demand that they provide me with a list of every weapon in their inventory. Does that sound right to you? Maybe it does to some of you dimwits, but that is because you have not been taught the reason why we have the 2nd Amendment.

You have been taught that we have the 2nd Amendment so that we can hunt or defend our homes and ourselves against criminals. Those are but secondary benefits of having the right to keep and bear arms; the primary purpose the 2nd Amendment serves is so that the people can defend themselves against their government. Our government already outguns us and has far more sophisticated weaponry at its disposal than that which is for sale to the public, and you idiots want to limit or restrict what we can purchase even further?

Listen, I’m not downplaying the loss of life these mass shootings cause; they are tragic and we should all be outraged over them. But guns aren’t the problem; they are simply the tool of choice by which sick motherfuckers carry out their twisted dreams. The people who commit these crimes went down the pathway of mental illness long before they picked up a gun, and if you were to successfully ban each and every gun in America they would still be out here, living among us, with whatever demons torment them.

And what is America’s answer to this epidemic of mass shootings? Why it’s to take further take away people’s ability to defend them self should they find themselves in an active shooter situation. We have been conditioned to rely upon the state to provide for our protection in situations when we should be assuming that responsibility for ourselves. If you allow that right to be taken away from you, you may as will get down on your knees and admit that you are a slave.

It’s sad how much things have changed over the course of our country’s history. Almost 250 years ago Samuel Adams wrote, “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.”

You see Sam, (and I don’t think he’d mind me calling him that), felt that the right to defend ourselves extended beyond our lives and our property; it also extended to defending our liberty; which in essence is why we have the 2nd Amendment. If you look back through the annals of history, who is guilty of depriving the people of their liberty the most if not their own governments?

My God, what was the American Revolution if it was not the Colonists defending their rights against a King, and his jack booted thugs who enforced his laws upon them? Did our Colonist ancestors have to undergo a background check every time they wanted to purchase a firearm; did they have to register that weapon with the King? Did they have a limit as to how much ammunition they could purchase, or the size and caliber of their weapons? Oh, and let us not forget; what did they do when the King sent his men to confiscate their arms? They amassed with their arms and stood resolute against his ‘law enforcers’ and defended that right; even though technically speaking they were in violation of the law.

As much as I despise Joseph Story for some of his ruling as a Supreme Court Justice, he did get one thing right. In his Commentaries on the Constitution Justice Story states, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

That right there is why we have a 2nd Amendment; not so we can hunt or defend our homes and ourselves against criminals. And you would give that right away for the promise of comfort and security? As Ben Franklin said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserver neither and lose both.”

I think the government has gotten smart, they know that they can’t keep passing tighter and tighter gun control laws; banning even more and more types of weapons. So what they are now doing is implementing these Red Flag Laws which allow police and family members to petition law enforcement to confiscate any guns owned by those they deem a threat to society.

After these recent shootings Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw, of Texas, stated that the answer is to implement State Red Flag Laws, or gun violence restraining orders. I have a few issues with that idea.

First of all, if these people have shown that they might pose a threat, via their Facebook posts or their Tweets, why wasn’t something done to identify them and get them some kind of treatment that might diminish the threat they posed? Why is it that nobody said anything about the warning signs that would be used by these Red Flag Laws to take away their guns? Could it be that those who commit these crimes have already undergone some kind of psychiatric treatment and were under the influence of mind altering drugs to control whatever their shrinks had diagnosed them with?

I suppose we’ll never know how many of these mass shooters were under the influence of drugs like Ritalin or Prosaic; as all we focus on is the type weapon they were carrying when they committed their crime; not what might have caused them to go off the deep end to begin with.

So America’s answer to the increasing violence we witness is to give the people the right to say that they are afraid of this guy or that guy, and based upon that simple fear the police can then march into a person’s home and confiscate their guns.

BRILLIANT!!! After all, it’s not like we live in a society populated by a bunch of pussies who get offended over the slightest thing, or is that an accurate statement about society today?

What if people don’t like the things I say or write about; what if my beliefs cause people to feel uncomfortable? Does that give them the right to petition the police to confiscate my guns; deprive me of my right to defend myself? I say if you take away my right to defend myself you had better provide me with a 24/7 armed bodyguard to protect me and my family; because I have no intention of going out into the world defenseless. Are YOU going to pay for the cost of that bodyguard?

The people of this country, or at least a majority of them, have no idea where their idiocy is leading them. They would have us live in a society where the only people carrying guns are cops and the military. Don’t they know that in countries where that situation exists that the people are subject to all manner of tyranny and oppression; and that genocide often occurs as those who oppose the policies of their government are either hauled off to camps or eliminated?

Patrick Henry warned of this danger, as he saw it coming as far back as 1788, “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?”

I’m sorry, I will not give up my guns. I love my family, I love my life, but I will not live as a slave without the means of defending myself against those who would oppress me. As Emiliano Zapato said, “It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.”

Posted in General | 2 Comments

Don’t You Dare Say We’re Free!

In philosophical discussions there is something called the Causality Dilemma; a question in which two answers are given; either of which could be the possible answer. For instance, one might ask: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? As all chickens are hatched from eggs the chicken can’t come first, right; it takes a chicken to lay an egg. But where did that first chicken come from if it did not hatch from an egg?
That is a Causality Dilemma…

Although the answer to this should be obvious, I often wonder if people have given much thought to which came first, government or man. It is a question of, not so little, significance; yet one which few have probably given any thought to. Yet that question, or something similar, has been on my mind for quite some time now.

There is not a soul alive today who was not born into a system in which they suffered under the thumb of an oppressive government; one which taxes and regulates almost every aspect of their lives. That being the case, there isn’t a soul alive today who has known true and absolute freedom; at least not the kind of freedom known by those who lived hundreds of years ago.

As a quick example, people think they have freedom because they are free to choose from hundreds of channels to watch on TV. Yet do you not pay taxes upon whatever service provides you with all those channels? Are there not a plethora of regulations regarding what content can be broadcast over the air? And, with the advent of Smart TV’s there is the very real possibility that your television could be used to monitor and spy upon you; all without your knowledge and consent.

So tell me again how free you are…

In his book The Politics of Obedience, Etienne de la Boetie writes, “One never pines for what he has never known; longing comes only after enjoyment and constitutes, amidst the experience of sorrow, the memory of past joy. It is truly the nature of man to be free and to wish to be so, yet his character is such that he instinctively follows the tendencies that his training gives him.”

I think there is a lot of truth to that statement; I think that since most people have never experienced true freedom, they don’t crave it like I do. Why that is, what makes people like me different from the majority, is something that I’ve yet to find a satisfactory explanation for, but again quoting from Boetie, I have found somewhat of an answer to why that happens, “There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection and who always — like Ulysses on land and sea, constantly seeking the smoke of his chimney — cannot prevent themselves from peering about for their natural privileges and from remembering their ancestors and their former ways. … These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them, slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.”

I think it could probably be said that the extent to which one cherishes their liberty corresponds directly with the extent to which they support or oppose government. The less you support government, the more you love liberty, and vice versa.

That’s probably why I become so confused when people panic every time there is the chance that we may suffer from, yet another, government shutdown. As far as I’m concerned the government could shut down permanently; close its doors, pack its bags and move to Tibet for all I care. In fact, if government ever did shut down permanently I’d probably host a party and invite the entire city to help me celebrate the event.

In his pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine wrote, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”

Although they may claim to, I don’t think most people really understand the difference between society and government; I think most people believe them to be synonymous. To understand the difference one must first know what state man is in as a solitary creature in a perfect state of nature.

In a state of nature man is sovereign; the king of his own domain. In a state of nature no one tells man what he can and cannot do; but at the same time if man chooses to do something stupid, and gets hurt doing it, there is no one there to care for him. Locke explains this in his Second Treatise as follows, “TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, 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.”

This state of nature is also a perfect state of freedom, with the only threat to you, your property, or your liberty coming from those living around you. One would think that in such a state the life and property of man would suffer the constant threat posed by others, and more often than not that is true. Yet Locke also declares, “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.”

However, as Bastiat says in his book, The Law, “Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others.”

That fatal tendency in man is such that, if it is easier for a man to take something from someone else than it is to work for it, they will do so. You can call it theft or you can call it plunder, but by whatever name you call it the end result is that in a state of nature man’s life and property is not secure; not guaranteed.

Thus it is that men enter into civil societies; for the sole purpose of better securing their lives and liberty. Locke explains that as follows, “The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature.”

If you’ll note, I emphasized that last sentence, because no man can be forced to be a part of, or subject to any system without their consent; for in so doing that would make them a slave. Locke discusses that as well, stating, “… for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.”

The obvious progression is that, upon entering into a civil society, man would then establish some form of legislative authority to enact and enforce laws that serve the purpose for which men enter into these civil societies; which is the preservation of their lives, property and liberty. (I’ll be damned if that doesn’t sound a lot like what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence).

Bastiat writes about this creation of a collective organization, or government if you will, stating, “What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”

Again, that sounds very similar to the sentiments expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Under a system based upon those premises, each of us would be equal in the preservation of our lives, property and liberty, and the only guarantee in life would be that we were free to pursue happiness. I think people today assume that happiness is guaranteed in life…it isn’t. As Ben Franklin said, “The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”

If such a system were to exist in America today, how many people do you think would actively support it, or become so involved in choosing who got to run it? As Bastiat says about such a system, “Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.”

But as was said, man, when it is easier, will plunder from others if it is easier than working to provide for their own needs; that is the sad truth about humankind. So, even if a system of government may have been originally established to better secure our lives and liberty, it will inevitably become corrupted, run by those who seek to use its coercive power to benefit themselves or their friends and supporters.

Our Founders called these divisions in society factions, some call them political parties, I call them people fighting to gain control of a system so that they can use it to tyrannize and oppress the rest of us. That’s all I see when I see people vote; I see people voting to impose their will, their vision of a Utopian America, upon everyone else. It doesn’t matter if you are Republican or Democrat, if a person does not agree with your political ideology then too bad, they must wait until they can get their person in power to change things. However, the whole time those of us who don’t care for either visions of what’s best for America are forced to suffer; because there is no way for us to opt out of the system; we must still pay the taxes it imposes and still obey the laws it enacts. And if that isn’t slavery, I don’t know what is.

Lysander Spooner describes the process people undertake when they vote perfectly, “He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own.”

Yet is not our system of government one which derives its consent from the governed, or the people? What if a certain segment of society no longer consents to being governed by a particular system; must they remain forever bound to it simply because they are a minority?

In his Social Contract, Jean Jacques Rousseau writes, “In fact, if there were no earlier agreement, how, unless the election were unanimous, could there be any obligation on the minority to accept the decision of the majority? What right have the hundred who want to have a master to vote on behalf of the ten who do not?”

As our government was established by a compact, either by the people acting as individuals or acting as citizens of their respective states, the fact remains that at that point in history THEY agreed to form a system of government for themselves. The question then arises, did they have the right to bind posterity for all time to that system?

A great many writers have pondered this question, and although I don’t consider myself among them, I too have pondered it. For instance, Thomas Paine writes, “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…”

Even Jefferson, who wrote our Declaration of Independence, pondered this question. In a letter to James Madison, dated September 6, 1789, Jefferson wrote, “The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government.”

After all, did not Jefferson also state, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…” That would appear to imply that government is not perpetual, that it can be dissolved or abolished if it ceases to serve the purpose for which it was established. The question is, must that dissolution be unanimous among the component parts, or can any portion of society decide that they no longer wish to be bound by such a system?

Let’s see what another leading, and respected president said on the matter. In a speech given in Congress in 1848, the esteemed Abraham Lincoln stated, “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.” (Source: The War With Mexico Speech, Jan 12, 1848) It’s ironic that 12 yrs later he reversed his opinion and sought to use force to deny the Southern States the same right he said belonged to all people.

The fact is that we have a system of government that is oppressive. Whether you choose to accept that or not is up to you, and only shows how unwilling you are to face the truth. That system was created and put into effect over 2 centuries ago, by men who are all dead now. They, or at least some of them, voted for this system of government; with some of them actually signing the document itself.

From a purely legal standpoint, can they bind us for all eternity to a system of their creation? Or do we have the option of opting out; of filling out a simple form that says we will not depend upon the government for any services, and in return they will no longer tax us, and we are not subject to the laws it enacts unless we violate the rights of another? Can we do that?

If not, then we are slaves to a system none of us has formally consented to. I certainly did not sign any copies of the Constitution. I did swear to serve and protect it upon enlisting in the military, but that obligation ended upon my honorable separation; I should now be free to sever the ties which bind me to a system I no longer support.

I know I already used this, but I feel it is important enough to repeat again, “The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature.”

Can I revoke my consent and return to a state of nature; free from the burdensome taxes and oppressive laws government enacts? If not, then what other word can be used to describe my existence except slave? Government, as Spooner says, “Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.” How people can equate that with government by consent is beyond me; yet they do.

If you really want a good explanation of how inseparable life and taxes are, all you need to do is read this, “If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band). If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder, convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that “our country” is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and “save the country.”

Yet there is a legal maxim that states, “It is a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it. This principle is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still “make his mark,” before he is bound by a written contract.”

So again I ask you, did you sign a copy of the Constitution, pledging your undying support and loyalty to the system it creates? I certainly haven’t, yet I am bound to it by the fact that should I refuse to pay the taxes it imposes, or disobey the laws it enacts, I can and will be charged with a crime and punished for my refusal to conform…to be a good little sheep.

Since when in America has freedom been a crime? (Don’t bother answering that, it was a rhetorical question)

This, in a nutshell, describes the government we live under, “It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the Constitution—not as I interpret it, but as it is interpreted by those who pretend to administer it—the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is provided by the Constitution itself, shall never be “questioned” as to any disposal they make of them.

It is no answer to this view of the case to say that these men are under oath to use their power only within certain limits; for what care they, or what should they care, for oaths or limits, when it is expressly provided, by the Constitution itself, that they shall never be “questioned,” or held to any responsibility whatever, for violating their oaths, or transgressing those limits?”

Patrick Henry warned of this very danger BEFORE the Constitution was even put into operation, “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.”

Yet people flock to the polls by the millions, never thinking that by casting their vote the way they do they are participating in the oppression of millions of their fellow citizens.

I think, if our system was truly just, that we should be allowed to opt out of it, on the condition that we do not threaten the lives or liberty of those living around us. I think that if you wish to live under this system, receive the benefits it provides, that you be allowed to do so, but give others the choice of saying no.

After all, isn’t that what Locke said about men entering into civil societies, “This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature.”

Spooner also said something along those same lines, “If the people of this country wish to maintain such a government as the Constitution describes, there is no reason in the world why they should not sign the instrument itself, and thus make known their wishes in an open, authentic manner; in such manner as the common sense and experience of mankind have shown to be reasonable and necessary in such cases; and in such manner as to make themselves (as they ought to do) individually responsible for the acts of the government.

If any considerable number of the people believe the Constitution to be good, why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and administer them upon, each other; leaving all other persons (who do not interfere with them) in peace?”

But we can’t have that, can we? For your system to work there must be sheep the shear, people to plunder of their wealth to fund it. How long would your precious system survive if those under it saw how much those who chose freedom prospered and thrived without the burdens imposed upon them by government? They would soon flee it like rats jumping off a sinking ship.

That is why Lincoln could not allow the South to leave, and why we will forever remain slaves until enough people grow weary of it and begin asserting their freedom; and if a few lives are lost here or there, so be it. As Jefferson said in 1787, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

But until that time comes, don’t you dare tell me that you’re free, for your liable to get offended by what I say in response…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Let’s Try Something A Little Bit Different

I want to do something a little bit different this time around. Instead of me just rambling on, while inserting a quote here or there, this time I want to share with you some select passages from the classic book, The Law, by Frederic Bastiat. It is my belief that if a majority of the people could learn, and apply, what I’m about to share with you we could easily fix what’s wrong in this country without the need for any kind of violent revolution or suffering; well, the only people who would suffer are those who use government to plunder the wealth and liberty of everyone else.

Bastiat wasn’t a Founding Father, nor was he an American, but that shouldn’t preclude you from having an open mind to what he has to say. Also, Bastiat wrote his book after the Colonies had obtained their independence and established our current system of government, so it should be read with that thought in mind. I would hope that you would read what I am about to present with the same open-mindedness that Thomas Paine asked his readers to have when he presented them with his pamphlet Common Sense, “IN the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense: and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves that he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day.”

In any case, I think Bastiat’s book along with Locke’s Second Treatise ought to be taught to our children as sort of a pre-requisite to any civics class our youth take, to kind of set the groundwork for a better understanding of why we have governments, what purpose they should serve, and from whence they derive their authority.

But, so long as schools are run or funded by government that will never happen; as to do so might cause people to begin questioning the authority government has to do much of what we currently allow it to do. Some of these quotes will sound familiar and that is because I have used them before, but they were always taken as snippets out of a larger work. This time I want to present them in the context they were originally written in so that you may glean a better understanding of what Bastiat was trying to say.

One final thing of explanation and then we’ll get started. Each individual passage will be indentified by a dash, (-) and may be a page or two in length. Also, if I feel the need to insert my own thoughts, or quotes from others that correspond with what Bastiat is saying, I will identify those separately by placing them within parentheses, ().

So, let’s get started….


– The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

– Life, faculties, production–in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

– What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

(That sounds strikingly similar to something Samuel Adams said over 3/4 century earlier, “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.”)

If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

– Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

– If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable— whatever its political form might be.

Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.

(Ironically that sounds very similar to something said by Theodore Roosevelt in a speech he gave in Paris back in 1910, “If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs.”)

– But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

(Now tell me if that doesn’t sound a lot like the way we live today, where self defense and defending one’s liberty from intrusion by their government is thought to be a crime.)

– Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man—in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain—and since labor is pain in itself—it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder.

– It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

– No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. … There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it.

(Is that why so many of us obey the law even though the law deprives us of our rights or property; simply because it is called a law? Yet did not Thomas Jefferson say that the law is often but the tyrants will, especially when it violates the right of the individual?)

– If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that “You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests.”

(I can tell you right now that this is true, for I have been called similar things simply because I refuse to accept what others take for granted; because I question the authority of our government to do most of the things it does.)

-But universal suffrage—using the word in its strictest sense—is not one of those sacred dogmas which it is a crime to examine or doubt. In fact, serious objections may be made to universal suffrage.

(Suffrage, or the right to vote, is something everyone believes is among their natural rights, and one of the things I believe should have restrictions placed upon. For instance, if your job is funded by the entity you vote for, then it is a clear conflict of interest to allow you to vote and therefore voting by government employees should be prohibited. Also, I think that unless people can pass a comprehensive civics exam on the Constitution and Bill of Rights they should also be prohibited from voting. Ignorance is a HUGE part of why we elect bad people to office, and unless you can prove that you are fully familiar with our system of government you should NOT be allowed to vote.)

(Now Bastiat explains some of the reasons why he believes universal suffrage to be a bad idea.)

– A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody.

The most extended elective system and the most restricted elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree.

If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with one’s birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend.

I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be.

In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder—is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise? … If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone’s interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?

(While reading that last passage a thought came to mind. In Federalist 51 James Madison wrote, “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Isn’t that basically what Bastiat is saying, that if men were good and virtuous there would be no infractions of the law, no plunder? This, in turn, reinforces his opening statement, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!”)

-But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few—whether farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.

– As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose—that it may violate property instead of protecting it—then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing.

(Tell me that that does not describe our elections today, with each political party seeking to gain control of the system for the benefit of their supporters, or constituents, and against the beliefs of their opponents.)

-Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person’s liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues—and only two—that have always endangered the public peace.
What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of plunder.

Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.

Its is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime—a sorrowful inheritance of the Old World—should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union.

(Ironically it would only be 10 years after the writing of Bastiat’s book that those two issues would cause a rift in the Union and lead to the Southern States to secede from the Union, which, in turn, led to the Civil War when Lincoln sought to use force to hold the Union together.)

(And next Bastiat offers us a means to identify and correct what’s wrong in our country today.)

– But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

(And now he gives us a few names by which legal plunder is made into law; all things, coincidentally, that we accept as normal and commonplace today.)

– Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.

-But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.

To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical—in fact, absurd—to assume otherwise.

(And that, right there, is why I no longer vote. Voting does no good if you do not vote, or cannot find candidates to vote for, who will utilize the legislative power of government solely for the purpose of preventing plunder, or socialism. It does not matter if you vote for Republicans or Democrats, they are both socialists in nature, with the only difference being who the laws they pass benefit.)
(And now Bastiat offers a choice, the same choice I have been trying to get people to make when they decide who they vote for and what laws to support.)

– This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.

We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.

(Option 1 is an oligarchy where the few have power and use government to plunder the many. Option 2 is a democracy where everyone tries to get their fair share of the pie. And option 3 is where government is not used for plunder, and it is only under this option that liberty remains on sure footing.)

-No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate).

– And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law—which necessarily requires the use of force—rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined.

– Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law—that is, by force—this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization—justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?

(Is that not basically what Thomas Jefferson based his entire presidency upon, and outlined by this simple passage from his Inaugural Address, “… 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, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”)


Well that’s about as far as I dare take this. I could have provided many more quotes; I could even have just shared the entire book, all 39 pages of it. But I fear, even knowing how long winded I can be, that I have stretched your tolerance too far already.

I think if people would but read, and take to heart, the things I’ve just shared with you, that we could actually begin making a difference in this country. But that means that people must begin accepting complete and total responsibility for their own needs and to stop placing the burden for providing for those needs upon society or the individual; for once you open that door, that is when plunder begins and the law becomes the tool by which the rights and property of the people are no longer secure.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

How America Became FUBAR

If there is one thing that Hollywood seems to like it is serial movies. By that I mean films that have the same leading character, or cast of leading characters, over and over again. For instance, how many Friday the 13th films did Hollywood churn out; ten or eleven? Then there were the Predator and Alien films, not to mention all the Star Wars movies that are always big box office draws. But all these have one thing in common; they are a continuation of a single storyline centering around one character or group of characters.

Another thing Hollywood seems to like doing is remakes. For instance Bruce Willis recently remade the Charles Bronson classic Death Wish. Then of course there was the remake of a Star is Born, this time starring Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga instead of Streisand and Kristofferson. Now Disney is in the process or remaking all their classic cartoon films with real life characters; such as the new Aladdin, Lion King and Mulan films.

But if I were to ask you which character has seen the most remakes, the most different interpretations, who do you think it would be? Why it’s Robin Hood, that classic story of the hero who steals from the rich and gives to the poor. Just off the top of my head I know that Errol Flynn, Kevin Costner, Russell Crowe, and now Taron Egerton have played the title role in remakes of the Robin Hood Story.

Now I don’t know if Robin Hood, or Robin of Loxley, ever existed, but the stories about him remain a fixture in British folklore. I do know that the Russell Crowe adaptation of the film is loosely based on historical truth. History is clear on the fact that there was a King John, and that at some point in his rein he was forced to agree to the Magna Carta to establish peace between the Crown and a group of rebel barons. So at least in the Russell Crowe version of Robin Hood there is some semblance of fact; even though in the film King John refuses to adopt the charter of rights and declares Robin of Loxley to be an outlaw, to be hunted until his body is carrion for foxes and crows.

But there is one scene in that particular version of the film that I would like to take a moment discussing. It comes when Robin Longstride assumes the identity of Robert Loxley and is told by Sir Walter Loxley a bit about his own past. During this conversation Sir Walter tells Robin that Kings have as much need for their subjects as the subjects have need of a King.

I never really gave that much thought, but for some reason, during the night while I slept, my mind must have recalled that particular scene and when I awoke this morning a whole new train of thought regarding it had developed. That symbiotic relationship between governed and those who govern is not isolated to the Ridley Scott’s adaptation of Robin Hood, it can also be found in the Hunger Games films when President Snow tells the people that they provide the necessary materials to make the country run, while the Capital provides the law and order that keeps the country stable; or words to that effect.

Now I have no idea whether or not this is a subtle attempt by Hollywood to imply that we need government in our lives, but it led me to ponder the following question; “Who needs who?” By that I mean, does government need us or do we need government?

If you were to actually think about it, there isn’t a thing that government provides you with that you are not capable of providing for yourself; at least as it concerns your daily lives and existence. On the other hand, we provide government with everything it needs to survive. Without us there would be no one to govern, no one to filch the wealth of to pay for the programs and wars it initiates. So when it all boils down to it, government needs us a whole lot more than we need it.

I don’t think people really understand how much power that gives them. Think about it, there are 2 positions in the Executive Branch; the President and Vice-President; there are 100 Senators, 435 members of the House, and 9 Supreme Court Justices; totaling 546 people. What is the current population of this country, somewhere in the vicinity of 320 million? We vastly outnumber them, and even if they have bigger guns than we do, what could they do if every single one of us simply refused to give our consent to their continued existence? What if every one of us stopped paying taxes to them; how long before they would starve and die?

You see, government does not produce anything, it only consumes. No matter what government hands out in the form of aid, benefits, grants, or charitable donations, it first has to take from the people through taxes. What do you think would happen to government if that river of money suddenly dried up? What do you think government could do if it passed a law telling us we must do something, and 327 million people turned around and told Uncle Sam…NO!

That’s the whole thing about government, even though there is always that threat of violence and force behind the laws they pass, the whole basis of our system of government supposedly rests upon the consent of the governed…meaning we the people. If we, in unison, revoked that consent, what the hell could they do about it? They could not kill or arrest us all; who would they govern and tax if they did?

This whole idea of consent of the governed rests upon government serving the purpose it was designed to serve. Now this leads to another aspect altogether; one which I don’t want to spend too much time addressing. That aspect is that, I believe, as do many others, that government IS serving the purpose it was designed to; that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the government we have today; it IS doing exactly what those who drafted the Constitution wanted government to do.

But, for the sake of this article, let’s assume that government is not adhering to the Constitution, that it is doing things that it was never intended it be allowed to do. Why do people consent to it if that is the case? I hear Republicans and Democrats alike decry the abuses of power by the other side, but when their side gets in control they go dead silent as to the same abuses of power by their people. Why is that?

What that tells me is that people are less concerned with the abuse of power; they are only concerned how that power is being used to benefit them, or do things they support. If that is the case, then there are no morals left in this country, no virtue, and we may as well sink into the cesspool of history as a nation that has failed to live up to its potential.

What do you think it was the Patriots of 1776 were fighting for; the chance to establish a powerful system of government? No, they were fighting to free themselves from a powerful system of government that had declared it had the ability to bind them in all cases whatsoever. They were fighting for liberty, the freedom from an obtrusive and oppressive government. And here we are bickering amongst ourselves over which political ideology gets to tyrannize and oppress the other. It makes me sick!

Those who risked their lives in the War for Independence did not fight for a system of government, they fought for the cause of liberty. They fought because they believed that all men were created equal with certain unalienable rights. They fought because they believed that any system of government should rest upon the consent of the governed. They fought because they believed government should exist not to subjugate and oppress them, but to better secure their unalienable rights. They fought because they felt that when a system of government no longer did the abovementioned things it was their right to shake off, alter, or abolish it.

I wish I could peer into the minds of people, I’d love to do so while I ask them to explain how they came about their particular political ideology; it would be fun to watch the synapses misfire and their thoughts become scrambled as they struggled to provide an answer to that question. You see, I don’t think most people even realize how or where they developed their particular belief systems regarding government – it certainly wasn’t from the thoughts of those who fought to establish America as a free and independent country, that’s for sure.

The thing is, at some point in people’s lives a seed must have been planted that grew to maturity, forming their current political beliefs; I just wonder what that seed was. I can’t make heads or tails out of what the Republicans stand for, except possibly for the fact that they claim to be the party of Lincoln, (not that this is a good thing mind you), and that they oppose everything the Democrats stand for. The Democrats, on the other hand, have a plethora of things from which they draw their ideology from. For instance, they utilize the methodology of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals in getting what they want, and they adhere to the tenets of Marx and Engels found in the Communist Manifesto.

I find it somewhat ironic though that the Republicans call themselves the Party of Lincoln, yet Karl Marx himself wrote a letter congratulating Lincoln on his re-election and his war for the working class people of America. Lincoln has been praised by other communist leaders as well; with Gorbachev invoking the name of Lincoln for his efforts in Russia and Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang also telling President Obama that as one who lauded Lincoln he ought to be supportive of China’s opposition to the Dali Lama and Tibet’s quest for independence.

So here we have Communist leaders praising Lincoln, who in turn is heralded as the man who established Republican Party Principles, yet which party purportedly opposes the Socialist/Communist ideology of the Democratic Party. It’s a crazy world we live in, let me tell you.

It all boils down to one simple question; whose philosophy or ideology forms the basis for your own political beliefs? Do you follow the ideology of party members such as a Bush or an Obama, or do you follow the ideology of those who originally established America as an independent country?

People will tell you that they admire, respect and cherish our founding documents; but how many of those who say these things have actually taken the time to study those documents? People will tell you that they admire and honor those who established America as a free and independent country, yet how many of those same people have ever delved into what made men like Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry tick; what formed the basis of THEIR belief systems.

Thomas Jefferson, as the primary author of our Declaration of Independence, could very well be said to have laid the foundation upon which our system of government should have been built. It was he who laid out the principles which government should serve and the power held by the people. It was he who laid out the grievances against the government they were seeking independence from. It should make perfect sense then for those who wish to understand how and why our system got so FUBAR, (F*cked Up Beyond All Repair), that we look to Jefferson for an answer as to how things should have been.

The sum of Jefferson’s ideology can be found in something he said in his first Inaugural Address, “…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, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”
Now tell me, does that even remotely resemble the government we live under today?

But Jefferson had an enemy in the government in the form of Alexander Hamilton; with Hamilton serving as George Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury while Jefferson served as Secretary of State. On one instance Hamilton and John Adams were called upon to dine at Monticello, (Jefferson’s home) at the behest of President Washington. During the evening Hamilton enquired of Jefferson whose portraits hung upon the wall. Jefferson replied to Hamilton that they were his trinity of the three greatest men the world had ever produced; Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Francis Bacon and John Locke. Hamilton then responded that the greatest man the world had ever produced was Julius Caesar; a dictator.

That story can be verified if you wish if you Google Jefferson’s letter to Benjamin Rush, dated January 16, 1811…not that I expect anyone to search that letter out; and maybe that’s part of why our country is so FUBAR right now; people simply refuse to seek out the past.

But that one instant in our past offers a glimpse into the crossroads our country was at in its earliest years under our newly ratified Constitution. We could have taken the Jeffersonian path of limited government and maximum liberty, or we could have taken the path offered by Hamilton, a path to an all powerful government designed to sustain, support, and benefit business and banking interests.

This is what Jefferson himself thought of Hamilton, taken from a letter Jefferson wrote to Albert Gallatin, “In order that he might have the entire government of his [political] machine, determined so to complicate it that neither the President nor Congress should be able to understand it or control him. He succeeded in doing this, not only beyond their reach, but so that at length he could not unravel it himself.

He gave to the debt in the first instance, in funding it, the most artificial and mysterious form he could devise. He then molded up his appropriations of a number of scraps and remnants, many of which are nothing at all, and applied them to different objects in reversion and remainder until the whole system was involved in impenetrable fog; and while he was giving himself the airs of providing for the payment of the debt, he left himself free to add to it continually, as he did, in fact, instead of paying it.” Jefferson then went on to say, “We can pay off his debts in 15 years but we can never get rid of his financial system.”

Sound familiar? The only difference between now and then is that Jefferson could have paid off Hamilton’s debt in 15 years; our debt is un-payable; sitting at an astronomical $22 TRILLION.

Political columnist George Will once wrote, “There is an elegant memorial in Washington to Jefferson, but none to Hamilton. However, if you seek Hamilton’s monument, look around. You are living in it. We honor Jefferson, but live in Hamilton’s country, a mighty industrial nation with a strong central government.”

Alexander Hamilton has been praised of late in a Broadway Play, there are many books written explaining how his genius helped America grow into the great industrial giant that it is, and how his vision was what made America great. Hamilton is praised by both Republicans and Democrats; similar to how Lincoln is praised by both sides as well.

I find it both sad and somewhat funny that the men who helped destroy what the patriots of 76 fought for are idolized by the people, while those who established the principles this country was supposed to stand for are relegated to ridiculous caricatures in ads designed to sell cars on July 4th.

People today have become interested in their family history, with websites like genealogy dot come and 23 and me offering services to help people connect with their past. Yet with all this interest in their past they show a serious lack of concern for the past of their country; how it became what it has become; the evolution from a country founded upon liberty to one which deprives the people of their liberty.

I wonder though, if people were to trace their political beliefs back to their origin, where would they end up? Would they find the father of their belief system to be Abraham Lincoln…Alexander Hamilton? Or, would they trace their beliefs back to Jefferson, and through him to men like Locke, Bacon, Newton, and possibly men like Rousseau; whose Social Contract is strikingly similar in nature to the writings of Locke.

All I know is that the belief system of 99.9% of the people in this country is nothing close to the belief systems held by men like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams; for if it were they would not be voting; they’d be out in the streets with guns fighting against our current system of government.

And maybe that right there explains all you need to know about what is wrong with America today…

Posted in General | Leave a comment