My Thoughts On Inauguration Day

Well, the mulatto is out and Trump is in; and to listen to some on the right, within weeks America will be great again. Not since Ronald Reagan have I witnessed this much enthusiasm and excitement about the election of a president exhibited by those on the political right. I’m not here to argue the pro’s and con’s of Reagan’s presidency; I only want people to realize that as popular as Reagan was, (the benchmark for true conservatism I’ve heard it said), things continued on pretty much as normal in government, both during, and after his presidency.

I just can’t seem to get people to realize that the job of the Executive, [President], is not to enact laws; that’s the job of the Congress. The job of the Executive is to be Commander in Chief of our military in times of war, and ensure that the laws which have already been passed are faithfully executed. Notice the similarity; EXECUTIVE….EXECUTE? Sure, a sitting president can make suggestions to Congress, but Congress is under no obligation to act upon those suggestions; and the president abuses his authority and position when he sidesteps Congress and attempts to legislate via Executive Orders and Presidential Signing Statements.

The job of a president is almost that of a manager whose job is to utilize the tools at his disposal to most effectively get the job done. However, first and foremost in any presidents mind should be the limits imposed by the Constitution as to what government as a whole can, and cannot do.

What is it that Trump has said that shows you the Constitution is of any greater importance to him than it was to Barack Obama? When the Republicans are in control they tend to do things which make their constituents happy, and then when the Democrats are in control they do things with make their constituents happy. Regard for the limits imposed on what government is authorized to do go out the window no matter which party is in control.

Your taxes may go up, or they may go down, but does it ever cross your minds that the money that you are paying in taxes goes towards programs that the government was never authorized to institute in the first place?

Most Americans have these blinders on that restricts their perspective on government to the two party paradigm. They either they look at things from the perspective of conservatism, or they look at things from a liberal perspective. Both sides are more than willing to condemn the abuses of power by the other party, but then turn a blind eye to the abuses of power by their own party.

These same people tend to look at government from a narrow perspective. They focus primarily on the election of presidents while giving little thought at all to those whom they elect to Congress. To most, these two branches are all that constitute GOVERNMENT.

Yet government is more…much more.

Although technically they are part of the Executive Branch, there is a host of regulatory agencies; headed by people not chosen by the voters, whose rules and regulations govern our lives and restrict our liberties. The Administrative Conference of the United States lists 115 agencies in its appendix of its Sourcebook of United States Executive Agencies. However, they also state, “[T]here is no authoritative list of government agencies. For example, FOIA.gov [maintained by the Department of Justice] lists 78 independent executive agencies and 174 components of the executive departments as units that comply with the Freedom of Information Act requirements imposed on every federal agency. This appears to be on the conservative end of the range of possible agency definitions. The United States Government Manual lists 96 independent executive units and 220 components of the executive departments. An even more inclusive listing comes from USA.gov, which lists 137 independent executive agencies and 268 units in the Cabinet.”

When I talk about government, and how the election of a single individual will not change the overall actions of government, I am speaking of government to include all those agencies as well as the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court. Sure, government may start, or end wars depending upon who sits in the Oval Office; your taxes may go up, or they may go down depending upon who sits in the Oval Office; and job creation may go up, or it may go down depending upon who sits in the Oval Office, but don’t for a minute think that the control these regulatory agencies have over your lives is going to diminish in the least, no matter who sits in the Oval Office.

As I sit here writing this, NBC News is on in the living room and I’m hearing interviews with people protesting the swearing in of Donald Trump. I have no argument against people peacefully protesting their government, or the election of Trump. What I do have an argument with is the reasons these people are giving as to why they are protesting the election, and subsequent swearing in, of Trump. But then the same can be said about those who are standing behind their candidate and telling people that he won; get over it and move on with your life.

What I’m hearing from these protesters is their fear of losing this benefit, or that right because Trump is now president. Some of these protesters sound educated and well informed; yet they all fail to display a sound understanding of the purpose for which our government is supposed to exist.

From the moment of our government’s inception it has sought to expand its powers. George Washington built a standing army and went along with the dreams of Hamilton by establishing a National Bank. John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Laws; restricting rights protected by the 1st Amendment. Yet I firmly believe that were any of those men alive today they would be astounded at the amount of power our government has amassed; and the extent to which it has restricted the liberty it was established to secure.

There were those who predicted this, chief among them Patrick Henry, who said this about the proposed Constitution, “Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?”

It all boils down to what people believe to be the function government should serve. Should it be the protector and provider for all their needs or should it be limited to those 17 specific powers outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution?

Again, Patrick Henry answered that as well, saying, “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.”

The question people should be asking, but they aren’t, is: Will Donald Trump restore any of the liberty we have lost over time due to the overstepping of legitimate authority by our government, or will our liberty diminish further as our government continues to amass even more power and control over our lives?

And that question is not limited to those who support Trump; it can also be asked of those protesting him, and those who supported any of the candidates on either side of the political spectrum.

How quickly we have forgotten the words spoken by another incoming president 56 years ago, “Ask not what your country can do for you ― ask what you can do for your country.”

You can either celebrate the swearing in of Donald Trump, or you can protest it, but the overall purpose for which our government was established 230 years ago is the furthest thing from the minds of both those who celebrate and those who protest.

And unless that changes, nothing else truly will. On 20 June, 1788 James Madison stated, “Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.”

George Washington may have been our first, and therefore the president to set the standard by which all other presidents are judged, but there is one thing he said that people should take as their personal motto when deciding whom to cast their votes for, “…the Constitution is the guide, which I will never abandon.” (Washington’s letter to the Boston Selectmen, July 28, 1795)

I don’t see that among those who support Trump, nor did I see it among those who supported Hillary. In fact, the only people I see it in are those who are ridiculed by their peers for not participating in the choosing of who will become the next president; because it is they alone who understand that neither candidate had any intention of using the Constitution as a guide in their actions.

We are told that since we did not vote we lose the right to complain; which is ludicrous. We did not vote for these people who violate their oaths of office and pass all these laws which restrict our liberty…YOU DID! You tell us that by our staying home on Election Day; or by our casting votes for true Constitutionalist 3rd party candidates we are wasting our votes. Then you turn around and say that we have no right to complain when the corrupt politicians you chose enact laws which you don’t like.

It does not matter if you are, at this very moment, celebrating, or mourning, know this; life will go on and our government will not truly change until we the people demand that it confine its actions to those specific powers enumerated in Section 8 of the Second Article of our Constitution.

And you can take that to the bank…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Bet You Didn’t Learn This In School

Aside from parents, those whom we call educators spend the most time with our children, and have the most influence on the things they learn. This is a huge trust and a huge responsibility; to teach our children the things they need to learn before they leave their homes and go out into society on their own.

Our Founding Fathers, those men who lived and participated in establishing America as an independent nation, felt that an educated society was the best defense against the encroachments upon the people’s liberty by their rulers. James Madison stated it thusly, “Learned institutions ought to be favorite objects with every free people. They throw that light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty and dangerous encroachments on the public liberty.”

In 1779 Thomas Jefferson submitted a bill to the Virginia Legislature entitled A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge. In his preamble to this bill Jefferson states, “Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than other to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shown, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural power to defeat its purposes.”

For education to have the aforementioned effects it must, first and foremost, be honest and comprehensive. To fulfill its purpose, education should serve to do as Noah Webster said in the following quote, “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.”

The most idiotic thing I think could happen in regards to education would be to allow our government to become involved in establishing the curriculum under which our children are taught; especially as that curriculum pertains to the powers granted government. That is akin to letting the fox guard the hen house. The easiest way for government to exceed the powers granted it would be for them to teach our children that there are no limits upon the powers they can assume.

Yet I’d be willing to bet that were you to ask any recent high school graduate to explain the checks and balances incorporated into our Constitution by those who drafted it, 9 out of 10 would not be able to do so. If you were to ask them to explain why our president is chosen by an electoral college and not a popular vote, they could not do so. Not only is the education our children are receiving lacking in thoroughness, it is also rife with lies; particularly in regards to certain events from our nation’s history.

Yet these children grow into voters, and they vote based upon their understanding of what it means to be an American, and their knowledge of our political system. Once they reach adulthood their ideas and beliefs are firmly set in their minds, and anyone who threatens those beliefs finds themselves battling against minds unwilling to accept any evidence which disproves those belief systems.

Yet, as John Adams said in his closing arguments in defense of the British soldiers on trial for murder in what we now call the Boston Massacre, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” You can deny them, insult the person speaking them, or ignore them; but it won’t change the fact that they are the truth.

In varying degrees everyone who has ever walked across that stage and been handed a high school diploma has been lied to about the history of our country and its system of government. The job of our educators is to teach our children the truth; and in that they have failed. So, here are a couple of truths you probably did not learn in school.

Our Constitution was illegally written and ratified.

The day after the Second Continental Congress appointed a committee to draft a Declaration of Independence, they appointed another committee to draft a constitution of sorts, outlining a system of government for the 13 Colonies. After a year of debating the proposal submitted to the Congress, the final draft of the Articles of Confederation was submitted to the States for ratification on November 15, 1777. It wasn’t until 1781 that they were formally ratified, but once they were, the Articles of Confederation became our nation’s first constitution.

Article 13 of these Articles of Confederation states, “Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.” (My emphasis)

By the end of the Revolution certain men felt that these Articles of Confederation did not bestow government the powers required to conduct the affairs of a nation; such as regulate commerce and collect taxes. In 1786 a convention was held at Annapolis Maryland in the hopes of amending the Articles of Confederation, but few attended and nothing of any import was done.

However, one thing they did do was send out a call for a convention of delegates from all 13 States to attend a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation, the be held in the city of Philadelphia the following summer. This was considered by the Congress and in a document dated February 21, 1787 they declared, “Congress having had under consideration the letter of John Dickinson esqr. chairman of the Commissioners who assembled at Annapolis during the last year also the proceedings of the said commissioners and entirely coinciding with them as to the inefficiency of the federal government and the necessity of devising such farther provisions as shall render the same adequate to the exigencies of the Union do strongly recommend to the different legislatures to send forward delegates to meet the proposed convention on the second Monday in May next at the city of Philadelphia.”

This conventions sole purpose was to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation, upon which the States could then vote to ratify or reject…nothing more. Yet, even before the convention assembled James Madison had plans to exceed the authority granted the delegates by their State Legislatures. In a letter dated April 16, 1787, a full month before the convention began, he sent a letter to George Washington outlining his plan for an entirely new system of government, to which Washington responded favorably.

The State of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to this convention; fearing that it would produce changes to the system that would not be in their best interests. Patrick Henry declared that he smelled a rat in Philadelphia. Of note is many of the leaders of the push for independence were not in attendance at this convention. Samuel Adams was not in attendance, nor was Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. Robert Yates and John Lansing left the convention when they realized it was exceeding the authority granted them by the New York State Legislature. George Mason and Edmund Randolph, both delegates from the State of Virginia, opposed the finished document; primarily due to it lacking a Bill of Rights.

Once the finished document was voted upon by the convention it was forwarded to the State Legislatures, who then sent out calls for delegates to be gathered to attend Assemblies to argue the subject of ratification of this Constitution; a clear violation of the Articles of Confederation which stated that it was the State Legislatures who would vote either for or against any changes to the Articles of Confederation. I would have to say that scrapping them for an entirely new system of government would be considered a MAJOR change to them; wouldn’t you?

And on top of all this, it would only take the assent of nine States, not all thirteen as required by the Articles of Confederation, to ratify this Constitution. What they were doing was using the conditions for modifying the Constitution to achieve its ratification. It must be remembered, that at that point in our history the Constitution was nothing more than a proposal; it had not yet achieved the legal standing as the Supreme Law of the Land because it had not yet been ratified.

How is it then that they could use one of the clauses within that proposal to achieve its ratification; when by using that clause they violated the existing law concerning making changes to the existing constitution?

The only conclusion one can come to is that the Constitution was created by men who overstepped their just authority, and it was ratified by the States in violation of existing law.

The Civil War was not fought over slavery.

Anyone today who says this, or supports the cause of the Confederate States of America, is automatically labeled a racist by those who have been indoctrinated by their politically correct, revisionist educators. The truth is that the Civil War was a act of hostility by the government of the Northern States against their neighbors to the South who had exercised their just right to secede from the Union and establish their own system of government to manage their affairs. This was the bedrock principle upon which our nation was founded, and is carved into stone in the Declaration of Independence.

I’m not denying that slavery existed, and that it was a crime against humanity. What I am saying is that it was not the cause of the war. The war began when Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to suppress what he called rebellion in the Cotton States.

You may not know this, but originally only 7 States seceded from the Union. It was not until Lincoln issued his call for volunteers to suppress this so-called rebellion that the other 4 States, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina seceded; only doing so because they believed Lincoln’s call for troops to invade the seceded States was an act of war against a sovereign nation.

In response to Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, Virginia Governor John Letcher had the following words, “You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South.”

The government’s interference in the expansion of slaves into newly admitted States may have been an issue which led to secession, but it was not the only one. You have to remember, that the Constitution did not prohibit slavery, and therefore the federal government could not lawfully decide the newly admitted States could not institute slavery within their borders. The only reason the Republicans in the North sought to restrict slavery was due to the 3/5’s Clause of the Constitution; which would have allowed the Democrats of the slave owning States to retain a much stronger voice in what laws the government passed. Sure, there were prohibitionists who sought the abolishment of slavery, but it was not the primary reason the government sought to restrict the expansion of slavery, or meddle with it in States where it already existed.

If slavery was the sole reason the Civil War was fought, as so many believe today, why would the South risk a costly war against the North when, to keep their slaves, all they would have to do is vote to ratify a Constitutional Amendment which would make slavery permanent in the United States?

Such an amendment did exist; having passed through both the House and the Senate. It was titled the Corwin Amendment, and it stated, “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

In his Inaugural Address Abraham Lincoln spoke of this Corwin Amendment, stating, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

He furthermore declared, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

How could the Civil War have been fought over slavery when the President said it was not his intention of interfering with slavery in the States it already existed in? In a letter written to Horace Greeley in 1862, Abraham Lincoln made his views clear in regards to the subject of slavery, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

These are just two areas where our educators have lied to us, and our children; and there are many more. They have not been honest and forthcoming when it comes to the powers given government by the illegally ratified Constitution, nor have they imbued in our children the love of liberty that so brilliantly burned in the breasts of those who first established our Republic all those years ago.

Yet those who graduate from these indoctrination centers have the audacity to believe that they are making informed decisions; when the underlying belief systems they use to justify those decisions is based upon lies and a distorted understanding of events.

But try getting people to accept that all they believe is based upon a lie. After all, I have achieved such stunning success at it; (And if you don’t recognize sarcasm, that was it right there).

You, your children, and when they grow up, their children, won’t hear these things in school. If people want to learn the truth they are going to have to first toss out everything they have been taught and seek the truth on their own. It’s like the old story about the Zen Master and the teacup, “Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era, received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”

Like this cup, Nan-in said, you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”
The truth is un-teachable to those who refuse to let go of their existing beliefs and open their minds to the fact that all they have been taught may have been a lie. Until that happens I may as well be speaking to an empty room.

Posted in General | 2 Comments

Maybe Tytler Was Right

Over the course of my 58 years of life I have been called a whole host of names. My father called me stubborn and pig headed. In school I was called many names that are unprintable in a public forum. As I grew older I picked up the names of opinionated and arrogant.

During my years in the public education system I never achieved much success at anything I attempted. I sucked at sports and my grades were mediocre at best. But there was one thing that I found myself to be good at; partying. I think that to make up for my lack of success at everything else, I worked my ass off to become the biggest drunk, the biggest stoner at Oroville High.

I’m not bragging about my younger days of partying; just trying to explain that when I find something I’m good at I work my ass off to achieve success at it. That’s how I am now with American History and Politics; I study my ass off and only seek to share the knowledge I have acquired. The problem is, nobody cares; are at least very few care.

There is a certain progression that takes place once one endeavors to learn about the history of their country and its political system. First they become aware that what they have been told has been a lie, and then they learn the extent to which they’ve been lied to. But for any of this to make a difference they must first care enough to start seeking out the truth; if they can’t do that then they will go on believing lies until the day they die.

I remember when I joined the Air Force in 1979; it was the first time I’d ever left the State of California. My father had given me tips on how to make it through basic training; but it still was quite a shock; not only dealing with a sadistic drill sergeant, but meeting folks from all across the country.

When I finished my technical training at Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas I got my first 30 day leave. I went home with newly opened eyes and wanted to seek out my old high school buddies. The problem was, most of them were still in that same mindset they had been when we graduated from high school in 1976. All they wanted to do was grab some beer and either cruise around town, or just sit in their rooms getting drunk. I found that I had progressed beyond getting drunk all the time and they hadn’t.

In a way that’s exactly how I feel now when I go out and interact with people. You may see me sitting by myself, but believe me I am aware of everything that is going on around me. I see how people act, and I hear what they say; and some of the things I hear people say simply astound me.

Their beliefs regarding what they expect out of government, for instance, have no foundation in fact. Yet when one attempts to provide them with facts which prove their beliefs wrong they get upset and begin calling the bearer of truth all kinds of names. The same goes for those who believe the lie that the Civil War was fought solely over slavery; when you attempt to show them that it was a war of aggression against the States that simply sought to secede from the Union, just as our Founders did in 1776, they get all kinds of upset and call those bearing the truth racist for supporting the Confederate Cause.

Far too many people still believe that by going to the voting booth we can effect meaningful change in our government. I don’t see how this is possible when there hasn’t been a candidate running for any office since Ron Paul who openly spoke of a constitutionally limited government. How can we effect any kind of real change when none of the candidates, or the people voting for them, care about what the Constitution says?

To fix a problem you must first understand what the problem is. Too many believe the problems America suffers from are caused either by the Republicans or the Democrats; when the truth is that they are caused by a government that no longer adheres to the specific limits imposed upon it by the Constitution.

If people cannot see that then no matter how many times we flip flop back and forth between a Republican controlled government and a Democrat controlled government, nothing is truly going to improve in America. You see, people believe that if the economy is doing good, if their taxes are low, then government is doing a good job. But did not Patrick Henry once say, “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.”

How much freedom have you seen restored to you when your party was in control? If you cannot answer that one single freedom has been restored, then government under your party is not doing the job it was established for, “…to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity…” (Preamble to Constitution)

In his book Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville explained exactly what our government is doing today, and has been for quite some time, “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.”

Are you content to be a bunch of sheep to be herded around and controlled by your government, or are you free men?

If you refuse to accept that your government has passed so many laws, so many rules and regulations which restrict your liberty, your certainly not going to believe that there are those behind the scenes that pull the strings of the people you believe represent you in government. You may call them special interests, but they are far more evil than that; they seek total control of the nation; primarily through control of its monetary system and the power that gives them over the purse strings of our government.

Lysander Spooner wrote of these men ages ago, “The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents – men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest – stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved.

And the men who loan money to governments, so called, for the purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder their people, are among the greatest villains that the world has ever seen. And they as much deserve to be hunted and killed (if they cannot otherwise be got rid of) as any slave traders, robbers, or pirates that ever lived.”

Many others have spoken out about them, the shadow government, but their words have fallen on deaf ears and closed minds. As long as their candidate gets elected the people are content; even if they are becoming slaves to an ever-growing debt.

Why do you think we fight all these wars and find ourselves involved in all these conflicts all across the globe? It certainly is not because the people living in Iraq pose a direct threat to those living in the United States. If terrorism is the threat they tell us it is, then why do we not have the courage to come out and say that it is because of those who follow the teachings of Mohammad and then ban Islam in the U.S.? But to go out and fight wars in other lands; saying it is to defend America, only goes to make the military industrial complex, and the bankers who finance these wars, rich.

The military industrial complex runs profits in the billions, but if war were to cease those profits would vanish. I remember when I lost my job as a military contractor due to Bill Clinton’s downsizing of the military; I was pissed. But now, looking back, I see it as a good thing. I could never go back to my old job, no matter how much they offered me, knowing what I know about the unconstitutional wars our government sends our troops off to fight.

I constantly hear people say support our troops. When are those same troops going to defend the Constitution? They all take an oath to do so, but how many of them have the courage to say no to orders that violate it? How many of them would refuse to go off and fight in a war that the US had no business being in?

The same goes for law enforcement; I hear people talk about supporting law enforcement but when is law enforcement going to stop enforcing unconstitutional laws? I have no problems with law enforcement; as long as it does the job it is supposed to. I recently had to deal with the local sheriff’s office when my son’s car window was shattered and the deputy who responded was courteous and professional. I have to ask myself though, how courteous and professional would that same deputy be if it came to me refusing to surrender my guns should California pass a law saying I must do so?

You may think you are free because you can choose between a Ford or a Chevy for the vehicle you drive; steak or chicken for dinner; or a Sitcom or sporting event to watch on TV, but what about those rights protected by the first ten amendments to the Constitution; how many of those have you lost? And, do you even care as long as you are kept safe?

What was it Ben Franklin said, “Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
If you cannot accept that your government no longer serves the purpose for which it was established; if you cannot accept that there are those behind the scenes who pull the strings of this government, then what hope do I have of changing your minds? I may as well be banging my head against a brick wall for all the good I’m doing.

Sometimes I think that the only time people are going to accept that what I’ve been saying is true is when the troop carriers come rolling down their streets to begin rounding up those whom our government deems as threats, and when the entire system, both monetary and political, collapse. But by then it will be too late to do anything about it, and the chains of slavery will be firmly attached to your ankles.

Maybe Tytler was correct maybe “Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.”

All I know is you can go on arguing over the so-called issues, go on arguing against the Democrats or the Republicans, but nothing is going to change until you stop viewing government from the perspective of the two party paradigm and start looking at it as a single entity that endangers your freedom.

And that’s all I have to say on that…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

To Quote The Who

same-as-old-boss

By the time Donald Trump is sworn in on the 20th it wouldn’t surprise me to see the national debt reach the astronomical number of $20 trillion; it’s already at $19.9 and climbing steadily. Most people cannot even get their heads around that number; a trillion I mean. Hell, a billion dollars is one thousand million, and a trillion is one thousand billion.

To put that into perspective, it is said the net worth of Bill Gates is 84 billion, plus change. It would take entire net worth of 238 Bill Gate’s to pay off the national debt. The taxes we pay each year do not go towards a cent of the things our government does; they only go towards the interest on the debt; yet still the debt continues to rise.

There is this website called Debt Clock that breaks the entire debt down nicely. According to them the debt per citizen is $61,339; which is more than twice what I earn in a year. Then it goes on to say that the debt per TAXPAYER is even higher; $166,773 which is closer to 6 times what I make in a year.

Make no mistake about it, I despised Hillary Clinton, but Trump is not much better in my book when it comes to fiscal responsibility. One of his big plans was to reduce the taxes people pay drastically; which is a good thing if government spending also were to go down. But according to some analysts his plan would leave an $11 trillion deficit; causing the debt to increase even faster than it did under Obama.

I tried to warn Democrats before Obama won about what would happen to their health care plans if he were to win and pass some sort of universal health care plan. They called me a fearmongerer or racist because I opposed Obama. Now that the shoe is on the other foot my Republican friends are saying similar things because I do not support Trump.

I do not support individuals, political parties, or issues; what I support is the document which first established our system of government back in 1789. What I see is a nation that is divided along political party lines and with no regard for what the Constitution says are the legitimate powers of government. It does not matter who is in control in government; the Republicans or the Democrats, the size of government continues to increase and the debt associated with that increase also continues to go up.

Does it matter if you get to keep a bit more of your pay if your country ends up defaulting on the debt it owes? What will that money in your wallet or purse be worth if the dollar collapses?

But it doesn’t matter now to the Republicans; there guy is in and the anti-Christ, (according to some) is on his way out. Things like the national debt do not matter. Trump is gonna be the next president but the continued violations of your rights and the continued growth of government does not matter. As long as it is your guy that is doing it, that’s all that matters.

I’m no prophet or soothsayer, but allow me to make a prediction. At the end of Trumps first four years, if he does the things he said he’d do, the national debt will reach $25 trillion; the government will still be engaged in foreign conflicts in lands we have no business being in; the NSA will still by spying on us; and Trump will have enacted just as many, if not more, executive orders than Obama did during his first four years.

Then, if the people of America are unhappy with their lives they will vote in a Democrat for the next president; not once stopping to think that no matter who gets into the Oval Office nothing ever really changes.

As Roger Daltry once sang, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Was Patrick Henry Right?

orl-redhill220120227123351

What comes to mind when you hear the word tyrant? Do you imagine some dictator dressed in military garb up on a podium with legions of troops on parade below, a la Adolf Hitler? If so, you can probably thank Hollywood for instilling those images in your mind. While that is one example of a tyrant, there are times when the abuse of power wielded by a ruler, or government, is not so blatantly obvious.

If you were to pick up a copy of Merriam Webster’s Dictionary and look the word tyrant up, the first definition you would find is: an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution. We have a Constitution, so that must mean America is incapable of experiencing tyranny…right?

WRONG!

A Constitution is only good if it is enforced; if it actually restrains our government and holds them to the specific powers granted them by it. However, if the government established by a Constitution oversteps the power granted them by that document, then the fact is that the people who are governed live under a tyrant. It matters little if that tyranny is exercised by a single individual, or a group of them.

As the Boston clergyman Blather Myles once said, “Which is better – to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?” Tyranny is simply the exercise of power beyond that which is warranted, or granted by law.

On June 5, 1788 Patrick Henry stood on the floor of the Virginia Ratifying Assembly and delivered a lengthy and impassioned speech in opposition to the proposed Constitution, saying, “My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants…”

If tyranny is the unjust or unconstitutional exercise of power, it follows that those in power, [i.e. government] are those who would be doing the tyrannizing and the people they governed would be those who are the ones being tyrannized. Why is it then that those who even whisper the thought of resisting the supremacy of government are looked upon as if they were madmen?

Former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once said, “Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us?” He’s right you know; we need not bow to their authority as whatever authority they have originates with us. We need not speak with awe and reverence to them because they are our employees; our servants.

In June of 1788 Federalist 78, written by Alexander Hamilton, was published in the New York papers. In it Hamilton states, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” I think that makes it pretty clear who is the boss in this country; and it isn’t the government.

The quote, “Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.” is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, it is more likely that it came from a series of debates on socialism, and was originally spoken by John Basil Barnhill in 1914. Regardless of who said it, it is true.

In 1794 the Supreme Court heard the case of Glass v Sloop Betsy, and stated the following in their decision, “The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government.”

Yet as the supreme authority in this country, how can we punish those whom we elect to represent us in government when they abuse their power, or overstep the limits placed upon it?

Returning again to the Federalist Papers, in Federalist 15 Hamilton states, “Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways: by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the COERCION of the magistracy, or by the COERCION of arms. The first kind can evidently apply only to men; the last kind must of necessity, be employed against bodies politic, or communities, or States.”

The last time I checked Article 6 of the Constitution declared it to be the Supreme Law of the Land. It is our law; the one written by the people 230 years ago to limit the acts their government can take. Aside from voting them out of office, what punishment can we inflict upon them?

Yet they enact all kinds of laws which are enforced by police officers, county sheriffs, and a myriad of government agencies that are as well armed and equipped as any military outfit. When we violate their laws we face fines, jail time, and death should we resist. If we are even suspected of committing a crime these ENFORCERS can break down our doors, tyrannize us, and arrest us if we resist.

Can we do the same to our lawmakers when they violate the Constitution? Could a group of well armed citizens break down Dianne Feinstein’s front door and ransack her house, then arrest her for crimes against the people? I don’t think so. Even if we could, what court would hear our case? What lawyer would try her? Even if we were lucky enough to get a conviction in a local court, the moment her appeal made it into the appellate court system the conviction would be overturned.

So where is our justice when it comes to holding our lawmakers accountable for upholding their oath to support and defend the Constitution? Does this not prove that Patrick Henry was right, that the Constitution does not provide us the means of waging war against tyrants?

In 1787 John Adams wrote, “The right of a nation to kill a tyrant, in cases of necessity, can no more be doubted, than to hang a robber, or kill a flea. But killing one tyrant only makes way for worse, unless the people have sense, spirit and honesty enough to establish and support a constitution guarded at all points against the tyranny of the one, the few, and the many.” (A Defence of the Constitutions of Government)

Yet speak that too loudly today and you’ll find yourself visited by the Secret Service for making threats against an elected official. And who made it a crime to utter threats against them? Why they did of course.

In his speech on June 5th those many years ago, Patrick Henry made a couple other noteworthy statements. First off he said, “But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our Representatives, will not abuse the power we put in their hands: I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers? I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny…”

This quote was directed primarily towards those who still put faith in the system, and believe that by their being allowed to vote our system is working as designed; even though from time to time we may have a lousy president. They believe that just because we still have the right to vote we cannot possibly have a tyrannical government; and are content to place all their trust in the voting process to keep their government in compliance with the Constitution.

That quote was directed to those who recite the mantra, “If you don’t vote you don’t have the right to complain.” When, in fact, the truth is that if you vote you don’t have the right to complain. You still trust the system, and are showing your support for it as it currently exists by voting for people to fill the various positions within it. I do not support government as it exists today, and I realize that no matter who wins an election, government as a whole will not shrink in size, nor will it relinquish any of the power it has amassed. I have chosen to withdraw my support, and I blame the people who still put faith in the system for the corruption found within the system.

The second quote ties in to what I was saying earlier about what power do we have to punish those in power who violate their oaths of office, “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?”

If you think for a moment that if the States held a convention and withdrew the power given the federal government that it would just say, “Okay, you win; we’ll stop governing” you are delusional. All one has to do is look back to the Civil War to see that they won’t allow anyone to threaten their existence, or the continuance of the Union.

And if you think about it, then the reverse of what Hamilton said in Federalist 78 has come to pass; that the deputy is in fact greater than his principle; that the servant, is in fact, above his master; that the representatives of the people, are in fact, superior to the people themselves.
And to paraphrase an old saying, if it looks like tyranny, smells like tyranny, and tastes like tyranny, then it most likely is tyranny.

My question to you then is; What are you going to do about it? As Patrick Henry admonished us, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force : Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

But you go ahead and keep voting; hoping that by doing so you will limit the growth of government and the increased loss of your freedoms. After all, it’s worked so well for you that you may as well keep doing it. (And if you don’t recognize sarcasm; that was sarcasm)

But if you ask me, it looks like Patrick Henry was right when he said, “Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?”

Maybe our ancestors should have listened to him.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The Constitution Made Easy

banner

We are a nation that has a government―not the other way around.
~Ronald Reagan~
Inaugural Address
(Jan. 20, 1981)

I know that there are some who would disagree with me; but I do not consider myself to be that smart of an individual. What I am is tenacious; I get a hold of an idea and I don’t let go until I get to the bottom of it. To best describe me, I often quote from Alexander Hamilton, who said, “Men give me credit for some genius. All the genius I have is this. When I have a subject in mind. I study it profoundly. Day and night it is before me. My mind becomes pervaded with it… the effort which I have made is what people are pleased to call the fruit of genius. It is the fruit of labor and thought.

When I graduated from high school in 1976 about the only thing I knew about the Constitution for the United States of America was that it created our system of government with 3 branches, and that each had certain checks upon the power held by the other branches. I had never actually read the document itself, nor had I read any of the writings of those who supported it and those who opposed it.

Yet as soon as I graduated and turned 18 my parents took me down and had me register to vote; saying it was my civic duty to participate in choosing who would represent me in the government created by a document I knew next to nothing about. Later in life, when I found myself unemployed I decided to enlist in the United States Air Force, whereupon I was required to take an oath to support and defend that same document; although my understanding of it had not increased in the slightest.

In the year 1999 I decided to remedy that fault. I not only read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I began to read everything I could find from the era which saw our nation gain its independence and then go on to create our system of government. To this date I have accumulated a file containing over 200 documents from the history of this country; and I am adding to that file on a weekly basis. My thirst for knowledge about the true history of America is almost insatiable.

Some of the things I have learned on this journey of mine has shaken me to my core; caused me to question everything I once believed to be true. But the driving force behind my searches has always been the truth; and I was willing to accept whatever truth the facts provided me.

As I progressed in my own knowledge I mistakenly thought that others would be just as enthused about learning the truth as I was; that my newfound knowledge would be graciously accepted and embraced. However, what I found is that most people are unready to accept any truth which contradicts their existing beliefs. In fact, I found that those who speak the truth when lies are the norm are ridiculed and denigrated by those who are unwilling accept the possibility that their core beliefs regarding government and certain historical events are based upon lies.

This discovery has in no way diminished my desire to learn more; although it has caused me to become frustrated and disgusted with a majority of the people I come into contact with on a daily basis. Their willingness to remain ignorant, the whole time espousing ideas and beliefs that have absolutely no basis in fact, astounds me. I liken it to me attempting to explain my views on particle beam accelerators to a physicist when I know absolutely nothing about physics, and then demanding that they accept my views as valid.

It was years into my studies that I ran across a quote by author Isaac Asimov that I feel perfectly describes the average American voter, “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.

I got into an argument the other day on Facebook with some folks who were supporters of outgoing president Barack Obama. When I mentioned that Obama has never been proven to be eligible to hold the office of President the fireworks began to fly. First they said he provided a birth certificate saying he was born in Hawaii; which makes him eligible.

I responded by saying my son was born in California but he is ineligible to be president because he is not a Natural Born Citizen as required by the Constitution. I then went on to explain how when Ben Franklin went to the convention that produced our Constitution he brought with him a copy of the book, Law of Nations by Emerich de Vattel. This book was referred to often by Doctor Franklin over the course of that convention; and its significance is even more important as it is Vattel’s definition of a Natural Born Citizen that disqualifies Barack Obama for the office of president.

My son is a citizen of the United States of America, (and I won’t even go into the illegality of the position of citizen of the United States created by the 14th Amendment), but he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen; and there is a difference between the two. Vattel states, “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

At the time of my son’s birth my wife was still a citizen of the Philippines, having not yet been naturalized. This means my son, although he may be a citizen, is NOT a Natural Born Citizen according to the definition found in The Law of Nations. Using that same description of what a Natural Born Citizen is, neither is Barack Obama; as his father was a citizen of Kenya, (which by the way was not even called Kenya in the year Obama was born, but was called British East Africa Protectorate). So although Obama may be a citizen, he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen because only his mother was a US citizen.

It was at this point that these people began calling me names; like buffoon and birther. Yet when I told them that names and insults will not bother me, and I asked them to provide any evidence to support their claim that Obama is/was in fact eligible to hold the office of president, the only response I got was, “Hold on, let me Google it.” To this date I have yet to hear back from any of them; deathly silence is the only thing I get when I ask people to back up their beliefs with cold, hard facts.

What good is a Constitution when nobody knows what it says, or they don’t care that the government it creates routinely violates it? It is a legitimate question; and one I have yet to have answered to my satisfaction.

The closest I’ve come to getting an answer is that our Founders could not have foreseen all the changes in society, and that the Constitution must be a living document that can change with the times.

While I’ll give them credit for trying, in his Farewell Address to the nation, George Washington stated something that refutes that claim, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

I have yet to find any mention of an amendment granting government any of the powers it routinely exercises today. So the only thing I can conclude is that government has usurped those powers for itself; and has Washington said, that is how free governments are destroyed.

While I do not expect people to do the same amount of research that I have, I would have hoped that they would at least have a basic understanding of what it says and the process by which it came into existence. But since they don’t, I feel it is my duty to provide that for them.

When our country got its start the people who lived here were subject under the King of England; with all power and governing authority held by him. After the American Revolution, when the States became free and independent that authority, or sovereignty as it is also called, reverted back to the people.

This was upheld by one of the very first cases heard by the Supreme Court, Chisholm v Georgia, wherein the Court declared, “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...”

Therefore, any system of government established must come from the will of the people. Yet the people had already established various State governments to govern the affairs of the people. So the question remained; when our federal government was established, under whose authority should its powers flow from?

When a convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation those in attendance overstepped the authority granted them and decided to write an entirely new document; outlining an entirely new system of government.

This document declared that the power held by the government it established came from the people, not the various States. This is confirmed by the Preamble, which states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I could go on and discuss whether this new system is not a federal one, but rather a national one, but that would only muddy the waters and confuse you at this time. Perhaps that is a subject for a later discussion.

Anyway, upon the remaining members of the convention having approved of the final document, it was then sent to the States for their consideration. The States then called for conventions to be held, made up of delegates from the States to decide the fate of this proposed Constitution. The one thing that was made clear from the onset of this process was that no modifications were to be made to the document by these assemblies; either they accept it in total, or they reject it in total. As we all know, or at least I hope we do, the document was accepted and the government it outlined came into existence on March 4, 1789.

This Constitution is not a list of suggestions on how our government should operate; it is the law which restricts its actions, and the things the people can ask it to do on their behalf. This was also upheld by the Supreme Court in 1866, “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of men than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.” (Ex parte Milligan)

The Constitution outlines not only the form our government shall take; with its 3 branches, but the specific powers given to each branch. Article 1 created a bicameral Congress; which was the actual lawmaking body of our government, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article 2 created, for the first time in this country, the office of the Executive, or President, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

The job of Congress, as representative of both the people and the States, was to create the laws under this Constitution. The job of the Executive was to…well, execute the laws.

Article 6 of this Constitution declares it to be the Supreme law of the land, but only when the laws passed by the government it creates are in pursuance of the specific powers granted the government it established, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, what are the powers given this government? To answer, we go to Article 1, Section 8, which declares the powers given Congress to be as follows:

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That’s it; those are the ONLY powers given our government. Anything else our government does is a violation of the Constitution. If that wasn’t clear enough, then there is always the 10th Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

James Madison is known as the Father of our Constitution, although he himself did not like, or accept the title. Prior to being ratified Madison, as well as John Jay and Alexander Hamilton wrote a series of articles in an effort to sway the minds of those living in the State of New York towards ratification of the Constitution. We know these articles today as The Federalist Papers.

In Federalist 45, published on January 26, 1788, Madison states, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

Then, when Madison stood on the floor of the Virginia Ratifying Assembly, in an attempt to convince his fellow Virginians to support the Constitution, (which by the way the staunch defender of liberty Patrick Henry vehemently opposed), stated, “[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”

I don’t know about you, but those two quotes, along with everything else I have provided, seem to make a pretty clear case that the things our government does today far exceed the powers originally granted it.

Yet most people don’t even bother to look past the charade that is the presidential elections to see the corruption of principles that is the entity we call our federal government. They believe that as long as we have free and open elections, (and even that is a joke as all the candidates are vetted to ensure they toe the party line), then all is well in America.

How many government agencies exist that pass rules and regulations which we are bound to obey, or face the punishments imposed by them; hundreds…thousands? And what happens if we stand up to federal authority? Well I suppose one could ask the Branch Davidians, or the Weaver family, or the family of Lavoy Finicum.

In response to one of the first egregious exercises of power by the government, then Vice-President Thomas Jefferson responded by writing, “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority…”

We created our system of government. We gave it certain powers. We choose those who represent us in that government. All power flows from us, and it is only because we remain ignorant, apathetic and complacent that our government has all these powers which do IN FACT violate the specific grant of powers found in the Constitution.

When are Americans going to wake up to the fact that if they do not wake up and attempt to halt the further expansion of governmental power that it will not end well for them? For years now I have been trying to get people to understand the basic facts I have presented here; but I would probably have better luck shoving a blade of grass through a steel plate than in getting people to care that their government is their enemy; and that by voting for whomever fills the seats of power within it is only granting your consent to be under its arbitrary will.

Two quotes, both of which you have read before, and then I will close. The first comes from Winston Churchill, and states, “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

And my final thoughts come from Samuel Adams, “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A Lack Of Fertile Ground

I’m going to come right out and say it; in a society where we are supposed to self governing, what good is a Constitution when the overwhelming majority of the people do not know, or care, what it says are the powers given the government it establishes?

Under our system of governance all power and authority flows from the people by a direct grant of power and authority in a written Constitution. This Constitution not only outlines the shape, or form this government shall take, but also describes the power it shall hold. It has been declared to be the Supreme Law of the Land, under which both rulers and ruled are bound, ” The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances.” (1866, Supreme Court-Ex parte Milligan)

There is not a person alive today who was alive during the era which saw our Constitution come into existence and put into effect. Most, if not all, of what we know about that period of American history comes from what we were taught in school. Yet were the authors of the textbooks that are used in schools across the land alive when our Constitution was being argued in the various State Assemblies? Is it, therefore, not possible that everything you have been taught is biased and possibly lacking in fact? If that is the case, could a case not be made that all you currently believe about your system of government is based upon lies?

We are told that America is the greatest country in the world and that to question that is both unpatriotic and un-American. When one questions the actions of their government the people look upon them almost as if they have committed an act of treason; either that or that they are completely insane and their opinions therefore invalid.

Yet is our government; that entity in Washington D.C. representative of this country; and to question its actions a direct affront to what America once stood for? I can’t recall who said it, but I once read a quote that said, “We are a country with a government, not a government with a country.”

I wonder if those who frown upon those who incessantly question the actions of their government stopped to ask themselves what the patriots of 1776 were doing when they took up arms against their own government; the English Crown? Were they not questioning the validity, the legality of the laws passed by their government which were forced upon them?

Why then is to do so today considered unpatriotic? Why is it that when a person can show in black and white that 99.0% of the actions undertaken by their government go against what the Constitution says, a majority of the people still place their trust and faith in that government?

Noah Webster, also known as the Father of American Scholarship and Education, once said, “In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide.”

The question is; whose principles? In today’s modern political arena the principles held by our Founding Fathers have no place. Instead the only principles that matter are those espoused by the two political parties; the Republicans and the Democrats. Even the outsider, Donald Trump, who was elected because the so-called conservatives of this country were disgruntled over their party’s failure to stand up to Barack Obama, did not once mention the Constitution, or its limits upon the office he sought, during his campaign. All he said was the things he intended to do if elected; and the people flocked behind him in sufficient numbers to see him elected as our next president. What does that tell you about how much importance the people place in the Constitutional limitations upon the power given the office of the Executive?

All people today care about is what their government can do for them. As long as the people have a roof over their head; three square meals a day; a job; and plenty of entertainment they do not care that their rights have all but been eradicated.

The people of this country no longer heed the words of men like Patrick Henry, who said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.” Hell, as far as I can tell there are but a handful of people left in this country who even understand what real liberty is; so how can they be expected to guard something when they don’t even understand what it is they are supposed to guard?

In 1791 James Wilson, one of the few men who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, wrote his Lectures on Law. In that work he states, “Government … should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.”

The obvious question then arises; is our government today legitimate, or is it something else? Again, the answer to that question falls back upon what, or whose principles you are applying when you ask yourself if government is doing what it is supposed to be doing. If you listen to either the Republicans or the Democrats the only time government is doing something wrong is when the other party is in control. But were you to look to the Constitution itself, and the words of those who were alive when it was written, then you may come to a different conclusion.

In 1944 Judge Billings Learned Hand delivered a speech which has been come to known as the Spirit of Liberty Speech. In his speech Judge Hand states, “I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”

While driving through town I constantly see those “God Bless America” stickers on people’s cars and trucks. I wonder if they ever heard the words spoken by fiery U.S. Senator Daniel Webster, “God grants liberty only to those who live it, and are always ready to defend it.”

Too many people today believe patriotism to be standing behind their government no matter what it does. My definition is somewhat different, and can best be said by quoting from Samuel Clemens, otherwise known as Mark Twain, “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” As of late, I cannot see a single thing my government has done which deserves my support.

We are taught that this is the greatest country in the world; that we have the best system of government in the world, and that to question either is unpatriotic. Yet is it unpatriotic to question whether the actions of that government are in violation of the law which created it? Is it unpatriotic to ask if that government has not become worse than the one which our Founders fought a war to free themselves from? If you ask me, it is unpatriotic to remain silent while our government shreds the Constitution and tramples upon the Bill of Rights.

It is said that for a farmer to grow a healthy crop he must throw his seeds upon fertile ground. Perhaps the ground upon which I am attempting to sow the seeds of liberty upon has become so corrupted that it is impossible for them to grow. Perhaps the people of this country have become so conditioned, so brainwashed if you will, that to question the acts, or even the existence of our government is the very definition of unpatriotic.

Edmund Burke once said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” If, as Jefferson said, our rights come from our Creator, than anyone seeking to deprive us of them must be evil. Or, as Jefferson also said, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

Although I may be wasting my time trying to open your eyes to the evil that is going on in this country, I will not remain silent when it comes to violations of my liberty; either by my government, or anyone else for that matter.

You may not care that your government is guilty of more crimes than the Mafia; but I do. You may not care that your government seeks not to preserve your liberty, but to make you a slave; but I do.

All I can say is that one of these days there will come a time when you wish you had cared as much as I do. But by then there will be nothing you can do but live as a slave or die fighting to restore what you let slip through your fingers.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Let The Name Calling Begin

460827

Of the many things said regarding Donald Trump during the recent election which saw him become the President-Elect, the cry of racist rang the loudest and resonated the most among certain groups of people in this country. Whether it was due to his campaign promise to build a wall between Mexico and the U.S. or his saying that if elected he would put a halt to immigration from those living in predominantly Islamic countries, the cry of racist was hurled at both Mr. Trump, and those who supported him.

This is the same insult that has been hurled at me, and anyone else who opposed past attempts by certain members of Congress to enact Comprehensive Immigration Reform. I can’t speak for anyone else, I can only speak for myself; but anyone that knows me knows that I am anything but racist. I married a Filipina for crying out loud; if I were racist would I have done that?

People who call me and anyone who demands our government enforce existing immigration law racists probably do not even understand the meaning of the word racist. According to almost every dictionary I consulted prior to writing this, a racist is one who believes in the superiority of a particular race. First of all there is but one race on this planet; the human race, so how can anyone truly be a racist without hating themselves as well?

I judge people not on where they were born, the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual preference. I judge people on the things they say and do. If they act like a fool I call them a fool; but I don’t lump everyone of their heritage or nationality into that same category. I take each person as an individual. So, to call me a racist because I expect my government to enforce the law in regards to who can and cannot enter the U.S. is ludicrous.

Using the same guidelines I judge every person residing in the United States in regards to their patriotism and Americanism on how well they understand our nation’s true history and its system of government. If you continue to vote for candidates who repeatedly violate the limits the Constitution imposes upon their power in government, then it is clear to me that you have no understanding of this country’s system of government, and therefore do not share the same values and principles which were held by those who established this Republic over 200 years ago.

Those who pull out the race card and wave it in the face of anyone attempting to have an open debate over the subject of immigration, particularly illegal immigration, do not realize that it is not that we do not want others from different countries to come to this country and enjoy the blessings it offers; it is that we expect them to come here with the full intent to obey our laws, our customs and our values.

Those who expect this out of all immigrants are told that they are racist and un-American. How is it that standing for beliefs that will ensure the survival of American values is nowadays considered un-American? From the establishing of our system of government in 1788 until the early to mid 20th Century, those who supported setting limits on who could come to this country, and who was restricted from coming here, was not considered racist.

I would hope that all those reading this know who George Washington was. If not, he was the commander of the Continental Army which fought for our nation’s independence, and the first president under our Constitution. While serving in that latter capacity Washington wrote a letter to John Adams, stating, “My opinion, with respect to emigration, is that except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement, while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body…may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.” (Nov. 15, 1794)

Washington did not say he hated those of differing heritages, just that the cost/benefit ratio was something which caused him to declare that there was no need to allow for the immigration of those from countries that did not share our values and beliefs.

A nation is more than just a plot of land, no matter the size, occupied by a number of people; it is also a people who share the same values and beliefs. When you begin admitting for residency those who do not share those values and beliefs you begin to threaten the very survival of that nation.

In 1788 John Jay wrote the following which states the principle I speak of, “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” (My emphasis)

Jay would go on to become the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the Washington administration. Would you call his beliefs un-American? When Thomas Jefferson was a young man of 33 he was called upon to write up a draft of a document that would become our Declaration of Independence; would anyone question his patriotism, or loyalty to America? I think not.

Yet in his Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson writes, “Yet from such [absolute monarchies], we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. Their principles with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us in the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.” (My emphasis)

Alexander Hamilton, who served as George Washington’s aide de camp during the Revolution, then later as his Secretary of the Treasury, was typically at odds with Jefferson over his beliefs as to the limit of powers granted government. Yet in this instance Hamilton agreed with Jefferson, saying, “The opinion advanced [by Jefferson,] is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.” (Jan 12, 1802)

In 1917 Theodore Roosevelt delivered a speech entitled Children of the Crucible, in which he stated, “From the melting pot of life in this free land all men and woman of all nations who come hither emerge as Americans and nothing else. They must have renounced completely and without reserve all allegiance to the land from which they or their forefathers came. And it is a binding duty on every citizen of this country in every important crisis to act solidly with all his fellow Americans, having regard only to the honor and interest of America, treating every other nation purely on its conduct in that crisis, without reference to his ancestral predilections or antipathies. If he does not act, he is false to the teachings and lives of Washington and Lincoln; he is not entitled to any part or lot in our country and he should be sent out of it.”

In his first message to Congress, given in December 1923, President Calvin Coolidge stated, “American institutions rest solely on good citizenship. They were created by people who had a background of self-government. New arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration. It would lie well to make such immigration of a selective nature with some inspection at the source, and based either on a prior census or upon the record of naturalization. Either method would insure the admission of those with the largest capacity and best intention of becoming citizens. I am convinced that our present economic and social conditions warrant a limitation of those to be admitted. We should find additional safety in a law requiring the immediate registration of all aliens. Those who do not want to be partakers of the American spirit ought not to settle in America.”

For close to 150 years these were the beliefs most Americans, and their leaders, had in regards to immigration, and those who immigrated to America. It is only within the last 100 years that attitudes began to change, and people began not being expected to assimilate into society; retaining their cultural beliefs and attitudes.

So who is un-American, and who is guilty of perverting and distorting what is meant by being American? America does not owe anyone anything; especially entry into this country. People act like the entire planet has the right to immigrate to America if it chooses; and they get mightily upset if you say otherwise.

Our country is indebted to immigration for its growth and prosperity; of that fact I won’t argue. But there is a huge difference between the class and category of immigrants who made America great, and those who are coming here today. Millions of immigrants passed through the Ellis Island center before becoming Americans. A great many of them got on their knees and kissed the ground; thankful to be given the opportunity that this country provides. Today the immigrants often sneak in under the cover of night, or if they do come in legally they do so for the benefits, not the opportunities, and they spit on the ground instead of kissing it.

America does not need, nor should it want, people like that living within its borders. Sure, our country has made some mistakes, but if your country was so much better, why the hell did you leave it to come here? The way I look at it is, you don’t have to like the actions of our government to live here, but you damned well better respect the country and the principles it stood for, or you can pack your bags and get out.

That’s what kills me about the hypocrisy of those on the left. They stand for all these causes; gay rights, womens rights; and a whole litany of others; including open borders and unfettered immigration. They are those who are quick to label someone such as myself as Islamophobic because I do not like the idea of large numbers of Muslims living in my country.

Yet under Shari Law, (The Religious Law which governs all Muslims lives), homosexuals are often punished by death. In fact, seven countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran and Afghanistan have laws which make homosexuality a capital offense; meaning the death penalty for those who violate it. Also, under Islamic Law the women are subservient to the men; almost second class citizens. Yet those on the political left remain silent when one brings up the violations of people’s rights; only caring that someone in the US is speaking out about allowing our country to be populated by people with beliefs such as these.

If there was a single word which described what America was founded upon, it would be freedom. Our Bill of Rights is all about freedom; the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom to be secure in your house against unreasonable searches and seizures…etc etc.

Yet in Islamic countries under Sharia Law their religion dictates the behavior of the people and limits their freedom only to the things permitted by their religion. That is called a Theocracy; where the leaders govern according to religious law. It would be like if the Pope were suddenly made president and everything the Catholic Church preaches is a sin became a crime; punishable by jail time or even death.

The tenets of Islam are incompatible with the tenets upon which America was founded. That’s my beef with allowing large numbers of these people to come and live in America; not terrorism; although that is also a possibility as long as this country continues to engage in, or finance and support unconstitutional conflicts which decimate the native lands of these immigrants.

Under Islam there is no tolerance for differing beliefs. I’ve read articles and news stories about Americans, living in America, who have been harassed, arrested even, for attempting to pass out Christian pamphlets in Dearborn Michigan because it is against Sharia Law to do so. Under Sharia law it might find one being charged with a capital offense and being put to death. That does not sound like the kind of religious freedom America supposedly stands for. Yet we tolerate their right to prayer; even attempting to demonize those who criticize it; while at the same time we restrict a Christian’s right to prayer in public, or government funded places.

I have also read stories about how in cities such as Dearborn where there are large enclaves of Muslims, the police often do not go there, and if they do they often turn the other cheek when they witness violations of the most basic of human rights. I’ve heard that these large enclaves of Muslims are extremely dangerous for women; as they are often targeted for rape. Yet to speak out against these crimes, and those who perpetrate them gets one the label of Islamophobic.

Also, if it were possible to identify Muslims whose sole reason to come to America to commit acts of terror, then place them in a large room with other, more moderate Muslims, could you tell the difference between them? Could you just walk into that room and take a quick look around and then point your finger, saying; “That guy, that guy, that guy and that guy are terrorists.” If you cannot say that with any level of certainty, why would you want hundreds of thousands of refugees from war torn countries, (especially when those wars were initiated or funded by America), into the U.S. when it is most likely they harbor very strong anti-American feelings?

Islam and those who professed to be Christians have always been at war with each other; going back centuries. Yet all I hear from people is the Crusades and how they treated the Muslims. Those who support unrestricted immigrations for Muslim immigrants fail to accept the fact that the history of Islam is a history of conquest and subjugation.

Ben Franklin, under the pseudonym of Historicus, (a fitting pseudonym if you ask me) published a letter in the Federal Gazette, dated March 23, 1790. In it Franklin provides portions of a translated letter from Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim, a member of the Divan of Algiers, dated some time in 1687. I would like to provide a few selected passages from this letter to show you how Muslims feel towards YOU.

“If we cease our Cruises against the Christians, how shall we be furnished with the Commodities their Countries produce, and which are so necessary for us?”

“And is there not more Compassion and more Favour due to us as Mussulmen (Mohammadans), than to these Christian Dogs?”

“If we then cease taking and plundering the Infidel (Christian) Ships, and making Slaves of the Seamen and Passengers, our Lands will become of no Value for want of Cultivation; the Rents of Houses in the City will sink one half; and the Revenues of Government arising from its Share of Prizes be totally destroy’d! ”

“Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book forbidden, since it is well known from it, thatGod has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.”

This letter was written as a response to a petition calling for the abolishment of keeping Christian slaves. The result of the letter was stated by Franklin as follows, “The Result was, as Martin tells us, that the Divan came to this Resolution; ‘The Doctrine, that Plundering and Enslaving the Christians is unjust, is at best problematical; but that it is the Interest of this State to continue the Practice, is clear; therefore let the Petition be rejected’.”

People who believe that we can allow these Muslim immigrants to live among us in peace because those who commit the more horrific crimes are radicalized do not understand the Islamic faith. The radicals are, in fact, the more moderate Muslims who live among us. Those who consider us infidels and dogs are the purists who live in strict adherence to their religious beliefs.

And who is to say that these so-called moderates are not behaving in such a manner as to woo us into trusting them; while in their hearts they despise us and all America stands for? After all, the Koran does allow for them to deceive us. The principle of taquiyya; or lying to gain the trust of those they seek to defeat, is contained within the Koran and might explain why they use our belief in religious freedom to expand their ranks among us, while secretly planning a holy war against all Christians in America.

Islam, if you ask me, is a scourge that colonizes and conquers; and we are in the stage of colonization right now. If we do not wish to be conquered then we need to put aside this politically correct nonsense and see Islam for what it is; a cancer that is slowly growing on our soil. After all, cancer can live within a body for years undetected; yet when it makes its presence known it takes drastic measures to fight it. Is that what we want with Islam; waiting to let their numbers swell until we, the people, must take drastic measures to secure the freedoms this country was founded to protect?

Americans, and by Americans I mean those who fit the description given by John Jay earlier in this article, are becoming fewer in number with the continued immigration of those from countries which do not share the same beliefs as we do. Our refusal to demand that they assimilate into society and fully become Americans; this misguided and dangerous concept of multiculturalism, is causing America to become a country in which the principles upon which it was founded have been polluted by the beliefs of those who come to live here from other countries who don’t share our beliefs.

And while I’m at it, people need to take a closer look at their undying support for the nation of Israel. They need to learn the history of its creation and who it is that currently lives there. Do some research on Zionism versus Judaism, or the political entity that is the nation of Israel. But be forewarned, the Zionist state will not support any open discussion of the truth regarding their crimes against humanity. Those that condemn, or speak out against Israel will find themselves labeled anti-Semitic and face the full wrath of the media…just because they are…well Jews.

I did not vote for Trump, nor did I support him in his bid for the presidency; but in regards to his statements on immigration I did agree with what he said on the campaign trail. Unfortunately, before he has been sworn in he has already softened his stance on this issue and his insistency that Mexico fund his wall. I’m wonder what else he is going to flip flop on; proving him to be just like the long list of those who preceded him at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But regardless of what Mister, or soon to be President, Trump says or does, Americans need to take off their rose colored glasses and see things as they really are…before it’s too late and we lose this country to those whom we’ve graciously opened our arms to.

Now, let the insults and name calling begin in 3….2….1….

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Are We A Nation Of Children?

baby-crying-4

In my younger years I recall hearing something quite frequently from my parents, “Grow up; stop acting like a baby.” Sound advice if you ask me. There is a saying that I hear from time to time, although not as much as I used to when I was growing up, “Life’s a bitch and then you die.” If you want my honest opinion; there couldn’t have been a more truthful statement made. Life is not easy; it entails work and often comes with failure and difficulty. As the other old saying goes, “Nobody promised you life would be a bed of roses.” Or, as John Mellancamp sings in his song Minutes to Memories, “There’s no free rides, no one said it would be easy.”

From the moment we leave our mother’s womb life is about learning. For 9 months we lived in comfort and relative security inside our mother’s womb; with our only need being the development of our body and the food required to fuel that growth being delivered via the umbilical cord. But the minute we come kicking and screaming into the world the burden of learning how to survive, and accept all that life is about to present us, falls upon our shoulders as individuals.

Sure, our parents take care of us in our early years; providing food, shelter, clothing and hopefully essential life lessons. Our schools, on the other hand, are supposed to teach us the things we need to get by in society; such as math, language, science, history, and the skill of critical thinking; the last of which they have failed miserably in if you want my honest opinion.

Yet people think that when they graduate from high school, or college if they continue their education, that they know everything; that there is nothing left that they need to learn. For the most part people at that age have pretty much formed their basic opinions regarding things and often refuse to accept any fact which contradicts the beliefs they have established up to that point.

In this crucial point they are much like little children, crying out, “I’m right, you’re wrong; so take that!” People, once they have firmly established their belief systems are very close minded to anything which contradicts, or threatens it. It is the rare individual who has the courage to question their own belief system; and it is rarer still to see someone change after learning of facts which disprove that belief system.

While I am not a fan of either political party; (I feel they both are guilty of violating the principles this country was founded upon), I do believe that those on the political left are guiltier of acting like a bunch of spoiled little children than those on the right. Besides, there is a difference, a big difference, between those in government who call themselves Republican or Democrat and those in the voting public who make the same distinction.

Those in the government use catch phrases and campaign slogans to garner support for their election, then upon taking office go about violating the Constitution and expanding the power wielded by government. Those in the public, on the other hand, believe in these catch phrases and campaign slogans; it is the cause celebre, or the mantra they recite when their political viewpoints come into question. For the former these catch phrases and slogans are tools they use to get you to vote for them, for the latter they are these people’s entire belief systems. So, when I talk about the political left, or Democrats, I’m talking about those in the public who are registered Democrats; not those in office belonging to the Democratic Party.

How many of these Democrats, especially celebrities, prior to the election of Donald Trump threatened to leave the United States if Trump were elected? Off the top of my head there was Amy Schumer, Jon Stewart, Miley Cyrus, Al Sharpton, Raven Symone, Cher, Samuel L. Jackson, Barbara Streisand and Whoopi Goldberg. How many Republicans, on the other hand, threatened to leave the U.S. back in 2008 when Barack Obama was running for president? That’s right…ZERO.

Why is this? Is it because those on the left are a bunch of whiney-assed cry babies? Now we are hearing reports filtering in that those who supported Trump are being tortured and punished because the left’s candidate did not win. In one video posted on the internet a Trump supporter is kicked, punched, and his scalp cut all the way to the bone…just because he supported someone they didn’t like. In another a man was forced to drink toilet water because he supported Trump.

I did not support Trump, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to remain silent while the losers of a presidential election take their anger out on those who did. Where is the freedom in this country if one has to fear for their life if they vote for the candidate of their choice?

Instead of torturing those who voted for Trump, maybe these people ought to torture and beat those in the DNC who robbed Bernie Sanders of the Democratic nomination for President. Had he, instead of that witch Hillary been nominated it is likely that he, not Trump would be the one being sworn in as our new president.

But no, these people believe in their party, and hate everything the other side stands for. Therefore any perceived injustices must be the fault of those on the other side; and therefore any retribution is justified in their minds eye.

You wanna know what that reminds me of? It reminds me of bullies; you give me your lunch money or I’m gonna beat you up. It also reminds me of the radical Muslims who say convert or be killed.

Is that what America has come to? Have the lines between left and right become so pronounced that violence is in store anytime anyone wins an election? The problem though is that the mainstream media remains almost silent on these atrocities by those on the left. Had the tables been turned, had Hillary won and conservatives been torturing Hillary supporters, you can bet your sweet ass the news media would have been all over that story.

The problem, and I don’t see any remedy coming anytime soon, is that for generations now our children have been indoctrinated into believing that society owes them an existence, and a comfortable one at that. They receive awards for participation in class, instead of awards for achievement. All I hear from people is “I’m entitled to this, or I’m entitled to that.” Bullshit, you are entitled to only what your efforts merit.

I work with people who cry that their pay is not high enough and they want more. While it is not true for all the workers, it is true for a great many of those who do the same job I do, I have to ask, “Why don’t you start by trying to earn what you get now before asking for more?”

When those first settlers came to America to live they did not have any government, any social services to provide for their needs; they were forced to build homes and grew their own food, or face starvation and death. They tried socialism, storing all the produce in a community held storehouse and delivering it according to need; and many died during that first winter because people were reluctant to work, just so that the fruits of their labors could be given to someone else.

It was only when they were given their own land, and the freedom to keep what they produced that they began to flourish. This is the true origin of the holiday we call Thanksgiving; not the politically correct fantasy you are taught in school.

Look at what our politically correct schools have wrought; we have entire segments of society who believe it is the function of government, and by proxy society, to provide for all their needs. Safety, security, food, shelter are all things that government is supposed to give them.

Nowhere is the term self-reliance heard these days. In fact, those who practice it are often denigrated and insulted. Just look at how people view those society calls preppers; there are misfits and abnormalities that don’t fit in to the overall view held by most in ‘civilized’ society.

Yet at the root of all this is the simple principle of freedom. Freedom means the right to make your own decisions regarding how you will live your life. But freedom has a flip side, responsibility. If you make a choice, accept the consequences of that choice and do not seek to blame others for it, or seek to make them subsidize you due to that choice.

And this applies to both sides of the political spectrum; not just Democrats. Republicans, in fact, are more guilty of this than Democrats are. At least the Democrats are honest about what they believe in. Republicans, on the other hand, call themselves conservatives, but conservatism to me is a firm adherence to the Constitution and the steadfast protection of liberty. Who among those calling themselves conservatives can make that claim? Not a single one who voted for Trump, that’s for sure; as nothing Trump said which cause you to vote for him is provided for in the Constitution.

Oh, but when I say that the tried and true response is, “Would you rather _____ won?” No, I’d rather nobody win if neither candidate will adhere to the Constitution. That’s what separates me from most people; I have chosen to vote for principle over party; and if no one meets my standards I simply refuse to vote.

But by playing this two party paradigm, or believing that government owes you, that society owes you, you are showing that you don’t know the first thing about how our system of government was designed to function. And when I call you on your ignorance you get all butt hurt and call me names to cover your inadequacies.

And that’s the behavior of a bunch of little children; and maybe since this country is populated by a bunch of children it needs an overbearing parent figure, (government), to tell the people what they can and cannot do.

Liberty is not for the faint of heart or the lazy. It is only for those who are willing to defend it, and for those who are willing to accept full responsibility for all their needs. And from what I’ve seen, there aren’t many people in this country who are up to the challenge of restoring it.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

What’s In Your Wallet?

wallet2

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

~John Adams~

Aside from those who don’t have much of it, money is one of those things people take for granted. People open their wallets, or purses, and pull out a couple pieces of paper/clothe and expect that they will be able to exchange it for a certain amount of goods or services. But what is that stuff you carry around and use to make purchases? Money you say? I don’t think so.

The Sixth Edition of Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law defines money as: gold, silver, and some other less precious metals. What you hold in your wallets and purses is currency; and you should at least know a basic history of how it came to replace real money.

Money, if it is anything, is simply a tool used in the exchange of goods or services. As long as that tool, or medium, is commonly accepted as currency the system works. In olden times a notched wooden stick, called a Taro Stick, was used; with the entire stick being worth a certain value. When you went to make a purchase a corresponding number of segments of the stick would be snapped off equaling the cost of the good or service. Those in turn could be used to purchase goods or services by whoever possessed them.

But most of the time it was gold or silver coins that constituted the medium by which goods or services were paid for. The problem with these mediums of exchange is twofold. First they are heavy in large quantities. Secondly, they are also bulky. The way around this was that someone would take possession of them and issue a certificate which was redeemable for the value of the coins, or bullion they held for you. If you wanted to purchase something you simply exchanged the paper for the good or service, and then that person could redeem that paper for real money. This is the origin of the first banks; simply those who held the actual money, while issuing certificates to be used in business transactions and which were redeemable for that money.

Under this type system the paper, or currency, was tied to a specific amount of real money which helped keep its value constant. This is what was known as either a gold or a silver standard; with the paper being worth a specific amount of either gold or silver.

Although I have never physically seen, or held one, that was the same way our economy worked up until just after my birth when gold and silver certificates were phased out of use. However, it wasn’t until the 70’s that President Richard Nixon severed the tie between the paper currency and the gold which it represented.

Prior to that, the U.S. Treasury could only print, (legally anyway), only as many of these gold or silver certificates as was backed up by gold or silver held in reserve. This connection between the real money, and the paper which served as its substitute, kept inflation low and the value of the paper money relatively constant. Once Nixon took us off the gold standard the treasury was free to print as much paper money as the government needed.

This is the cause of inflation; not the cost of goods or services going up, (although that has happened to a certain extent). Primarily though inflation is due to the simple fact that there is simply much more paper money floating around in our economy than in years past. If you look at an ounce of gold or silver, each buys pretty much the same as they have going all the way back to when our nation was first founded. The value of gold and silver have remained constant; it is the fact that it takes more of the paper currency to buy an ounce of gold or silver which is the true nature of inflation. Paper currency, or money as you call it, has simply lost most of its value.

These things we call dollar bills are worthless and we only accept them because they have the full faith and backing of our government. But what good is backing when they are backed only by words and nothing of real intrinsic value? This is what is known as a fiat currency; only having value because our government declares it to have value. Even our coinage is no longer made of gold, silver, or copper.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to coin our nation’s currency, or money; “The Congress shall have power to… To coin money, regulate the value thereof…” In 1792 Congress passed the first Coinage Act; establishing the United States mint to fulfill their authority to coin money, and regulate the value thereof.

There is a principle in both Constitutional and administrative law which states, “delegata potestas no potest delegari” or “no delegated powers can be further delegated.” As government draws its power and authority from the people, they are, not only delegated powers, but limited to those powers contained within Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

While Congress does have the authority to coin our money and regulate its value, they do not have the authority to give that power to anyone else; particularly a private bank whose only ties to government is the fact that its Chairman is chosen by the President. I don’t care what the necessary and proper clause says, or the Supreme Court for that matter, it is NOT necessary that our monetary system be run by a group of private bankers.

Had you read your Bibles you would remember the time Jesus went to the Temple and was outraged at the money changers who were exchanging the Roman currency for a mode of payment that was acceptable to their beliefs. They would charge exorbitant exchange rates, basically robbing those who came to the Temple to worship. This is what caused Jesus to say, “My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”

These money changers have existed throughout history, seeking to gain control over people by controlling their monetary supply. James Madison, so-called Father of the Constitution and 4th President of the United States once said, “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it’s issuance.”

Andrew Jackson, our 7th President is famous for his battle against the central bankers using the words of Jesus by calling them a den of thieves and saying he would rout them out. James Garfield, our nation’s 20th President also said, “Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.”

And who controls our monetary system, supply and regulates its value? Why The Federal Reserve; a privately owned bank, or money changers as Madison, Jefferson, Jackson and others would have called them.

The value of what you call money is controlled and manipulated by these men; its spending power having been diminished by a flooding of our economy with this worthless fiat currency. Through a convoluted process what you call money is created out of thin air as notes of debt. It no longer has any value of its own; rather it ties you to the debt that created it as collateral. Everything you have purchased using this fiat currency is also collateral on that debt; your house, your vehicle, and all the other items you routinely purchase using it.

By the dual taxation of inflation and the income tax you have been rendered from a free man to a serf who works solely to enrich a small group of men who control not only our monetary system, but our government as well. For government today spends far more than it takes in from taxes and the only way it can continue to operate is to borrow money. If our government were to make any effort to eliminate the control these men have over them, or our monetary system they could plunge our country into a depression that made the one in the late 1920’s look like a walk in the park.

It’s bad enough that what you carry around in your wallets and purses is of no value; but they are trying to eliminate physical money. Have you ever noticed, or perhaps you are one of them, that hardly anyone uses cash anymore to buy things? Debit cards are routinely used to make even the smallest of purchases these days.

I remember when people rarely used checks; preferring to pay with cash. Then slowly, as credit cards became more easily obtainable and credit less stigmatized I began noticing that more and more businesses were no longer accepting checks as a form of payment; or they were immediately withdrawing the funds from your account upon verification of the checks authenticity.

Nowadays, the vast majority use debit cards, or worse, credit cards to make their purchases. So on top of being tied to the national debt they are also accumulating huge sums of personal debt. How many of you can claim to be 100% debt free; I mean aside from your portion of the National Debt that is. If you have a mortgage, a car payment, a credit card balance you are a slave to that debt.

Have you ever attempted to purchase something, only to have your debit card rejected for insufficient funds, or even technical difficulties? Imagine if for some reason you were completely restricted from purchasing things because your access to your money was cut off.

There has been a slow, but steady progression in this country from real money to a completely moneyless society. I foresee a time in the future when all transactions are made electronically without a penny of actual money, or fiat currency for that matter, ever changing hands.

Whether it be the universal use of debit cards or an RFID implant under their skin. While many would accept something like that gladly; claiming that it simplified things, I would think twice before accepting that as my only means of purchasing or selling goods or services.

You may call me Mr. Tin Foil Hat, but what if you did not like the way your government was doing things and you decided to speak out, protest, or organize an opposition movement? How hard would it be for them to simply turn off your access to the system; cut you off from your money or restrict you from selling anything? They could flip the switch, or make a few entries into a computer and it would be like you no longer existed.

I don’t know about you, but that sounds frighteningly similar to what is written in the Book of Revelations, “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

I just read this morning, in fact it was the inspiration for this entire article, an article about the war on cash. It told of a Swedish woman who had slowly over the course of her life saved a pretty sizeable sum of cash. The thing was, she didn’t keep it in a bank, she kept it in her home. She took her outdated notes to the bank to replace them with those currently in use and the bank refused to issue her replacements. In fact they demanded that she provide receipts for how she had accumulated so much cash.

Think that couldn’t happen here? Think again. Lyndon McClellan was a convenience store/restaurant owner who had saved up a tidy sum of around $107,000. To avoid filing paperwork on his deposits at his bank he kept them under $10,000 each. Yet the IRS deemed his actions suspicious and confiscated all his money.

There has been a war going on against real money since the ink was still fresh on our Constitution. As soon as our system of government went into action Alexander Hamilton was there on behalf of the bankers to influence Washington; convincing him to establish a Central Bank for the United States…much to the chagrin of Thomas Jefferson who opposed the idea of a central bank and large national debt.

Those who control the money supply of a nation control EVERYTHING, including you. They may not tell you directly what to do, but they control your wealth by controlling how much the money you earn purchases.

But fear not, Donald Trump has been elected and will soon be sworn in; and he has promised to make America great again. And if you don’t like Trump; no problem, in a few years the candidate of your choice will get elected and they will make things great again.

When will people, if ever, realize that they are living proof that Einstein was right about what constitutes insanity: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

And that’s just another reason I will never trust our government; they have sold us into servitude to the banks; all for the price of an unlimited credit balance for their spending.

So, as the TV commercials say; What’s in your wallet?

Posted in General | Leave a comment