Stop Labeling Yourself and You Will Find Freedom

I just had someone ask me an interesting question on Facebook. Someone I’d never met before asked me if I was a Libertarian. While I am not big on the idea of labels; I believe they confine and restrict you, I suppose if one were to apply one that fit with my way of thinking, calling me a Libertarian is probably pretty close.

Libertarianism, simply put, is a belief system based upon the concept of individual liberty with a heavy dose of distrust and skepticism for political power and authority. At first glance that may sound like the perfect definition of me but I am not one who believes that mankind can do without some form of government. It is like James Madison said in Federalist 51, “If men were angels no government would be necessary.”

I believe that government is fine as long as it sticks to the purposes for which it was established. It is when it oversteps the purpose for which it was established, or begins violating the rights of the people it governs that I begin to take issue with it.

Far too many people in this country limit themselves by their adherence to a political party; and this applies equally to those who call themselves Republicans and those who call themselves Democrats. In my opinion it gets even worse when one begins applying the broader labels of conservative and liberal.

At least when one talks about the distinction between political parties there is a party platform one can turn to and find the basic tenets of that party; the same cannot be said for conservatives or liberals. When one begins saying that they are either conservative or liberal, to what are they comparing themselves against? You see, being conservative, or liberal, is an objective identifier that requires you to compare yourself to something, or someone else.

Believe me, I do not want to turn this into a religious discussion; but this reminds me of something I once heard someone say. This person was addressing a large audience and someone said that they believed they would go to heaven because they were a ‘good’ person. The speaker then asked that person what he meant when he said he was a good person. The guy responded by saying, and I’m paraphrasing now, “Well, I haven’t killed anybody, nor have I robbed any banks, so in comparison to a lot of people I’m a good person.” The speaker then said, and again I’m paraphrasing, “While that may be true, your comparison is faulty. You should not be comparing yourself to other men and women, but instead you should be comparing yourself to Jesus.”

You see, saying you are conservative depends upon what criteria you use to define one who is liberal. I was born in 1958 and I can assure you that those who called themselves conservatives back then would not believe in the tenets of those who call themselves conservatives today. To take this concept one step further, those who were alive in the era which produced our Constitution and Bill of Rights would not consider the beliefs of late 1950’s conservatives as the same beliefs they held in regards to the powers given government and the individual rights of man.

By no means am I saying that there is not a difference between today’s conservatives and today’s liberals; there is. What I am saying is that if you were to compare today’s conservatives and liberals against the beliefs held by, say, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, you would find a wide gulf of difference in beliefs. These labels people use to describe themselves all depend upon what they are comparing themselves to, and that’s the problem; they are not comparing their beliefs to the basic principles upon which this country, and its system of government was founded.

For instance, in 2017 America the conservatives like to talk about lower taxes, yet where they to read the history of this country, or our Constitution, they would find that, aside from Lincoln’s use of one during the Civil War, there was never a tax upon the income of the people until the year 1913.

Our nation went from 13 Colonies, or States, along the Eastern Seaboard to 48 States covering a land mass which spread from ocean to ocean; yet it grew into this mighty nation without ever placing a tax upon the earnings of the people.

Our Constitution, as originally written, declares that “[A]ll duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” How well then does a graduated income tax meet that requirement that all taxes be uniform?

Just 30 years after the end of the Civil War Congress once again attempted to impose an income tax; this time which applied only to the top 2% of wage earners in America. The Supreme Court struck it down; declaring it to be unconstitutional because it was not uniform across the land. In his statements on their ruling Justice Stephen Field predicted that should government be allowed to impose anything as radical as a graduated income tax that it would “… be but the stepping stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich.”

So, once again, who would you consider to be either liberal or conservative; the people today who argue over higher taxes for the rich versus lower taxes, or those who argued for a tax upon the top 2% or no taxes altogether?

Since most people alive today care little about the history of this country, they are not familiar with the thoughts and beliefs of those who founded it all those years ago. The beliefs of the people today are based upon what they are taught in school, what they hear on the news, and what they are told by those who hold the seats of power in our state and federal governments.

Do you honestly think that these people have a vested interest in telling you the truth in regards to the limits placed upon their power? When we allow government to dictate the curriculum for our public schools we create indoctrination centers; not centers where our children are taught to think. When we teach them revisionist history, or only one side of history, we are depriving our children of the whole truth. When teachers attempt to impose their own personal biases upon their students we are brainwashing our children into holding whatever belief system their teachers hold.

I am lucky in that for as long as I can remember I’ve been somewhat of a loner and a rebel. I never accepted that what I was being told was the truth without questioning it. This got me into trouble from time to time, but trying to change that aspect of my personality is as futile as trying to change my bone structure; it simply ain’t gonna happen.

I remember growing up my father used to tell me that if I see something wrong in this world that I should speak out against it; not hold my tongue in the hope that whatever it was went away. He also used to tell me that I should call a spade a spade; not sugarcoat the truth. In today’s politically correct world there are certain subjects that have been deemed off limits to discussion because if you debate them you may end up offending someone. But there is another old saying my dad used to repeat, that being, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never harm me.”

Have we become a nation of wussies where the open discussion of ideas is prohibited because someone’s feelings might get hurt? Have we become so pussified that the truth is kept in the shadows because it might offend someone?

People today treat their political ideology as if it were a life preserver and they were stranded in the middle of the ocean. The truth may be all around them, but if it conflicts with their existing beliefs they are too afraid to let go of their comforting belief systems to embrace it.

People say that they love this country, yet they refuse to seek out the truth in regards to the principles it was founded upon; instead choosing to trust the rhetoric and propaganda that is spoon fed to them.

I love this country more than you could imagine; but I also despise it because the people who occupy it refuse to accept that the government which we have today is not even close to the one outlined by the Constitution.

Perhaps it was inevitable; the downfall of the American Republic; but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. I get so outraged when people call me a radical because of the beliefs I hold in regards to what our government can and cannot do. What makes it worse is that when I provide a litany of evidence to support my position, people close their minds and begin spewing all this emotional garbage with absolutely no basis in fact. It is either that, or I am turned in for saying something that offends someone. In either case, the truth loses; and that’s all I really seek, that people give the truth a chance to prove itself in the jury of their minds.

But I am not a radical; unless you consider a complete reform of our system back to the values it was established upon radical. Then I will gladly accept that title. To put it simply, allow me to provide one final quote from H.L. Mencken, “The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched.”

But nothing in this country will change as long as people continue to cling to these labels which identify their personal beliefs. Labels are the chains which enslave you, and if you truly want to be free you must abandon them.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Will America Ever Become Great Again?

I’ve heard many people say that the primary reason they watch the Super Bowl is for the TV ads, or commercials. Sometimes these ads contain a catchy phrase, or slogan that we remember years after the ads are no longer running on TV; they become part of our cultural identity. They also do not always have to contain the company’s name, such as the slogan “You’re in good hands with Allstate.” Often they are just a few select words that stick in people’s minds and help them remember a specific brand, or product. For instance, how many of you recall the phrases, “Where’s the beef”, “Got milk” or “Breakfast of champions”?

Any company that hopes to sell their product to a wide swath of society usually will hire a marketing team to create ads that attract the buyer’s attention. These marketing teams study what society finds acceptable, humorous, or of importance and then go about trying to find a phrase or slogan that they can use to draw as many people to the product they were hired to sell as possible; just like bait on a fish hook draws in a fish.

Why do I bring this up? I think the answer to that can best be explained by quoting Jackson Browne from his song Lives in the Balance, “They sell us the President the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars…”

What is a presidential election cycle if not the biggest job interview in the world? When a company typically opens a position they will interview a number of people to fill the position; choosing from among them the one they feel most qualified to do the job best. However, a candidate for president cannot sit down and be interviewed by each and every voter, so they hold rallies and run campaign ads on TV.

Just as companies hire marketing teams, a candidate for president hires a campaign staff to manage their campaign. The difference is that instead of selling you a product they are selling you on an individual for political office. Yet the tactics they use are very similar; polished ads and catchy campaign slogans.

Some of you may be too young to remember, but Jimmy Carter ran on the campaign slogan of “Not just peanuts” a reference to his having been a peanut farmer. In 1928 Herbert Hoover’s slogan was, “A Chicken in Every Pot and a Car in Every Garage.” Then of course there were Obama’s slogans, “Change we can believe in” and “Yes we can.” Of course, sometimes these catchy slogans come back to bite a candidate in the ass, as did George H.W. Bush’s slogan, “Read my lips, no new taxes.” Not every candidate who has a catchy slogan wins though. Bernie Sander’s catchy phrase, “Feel the Bern” didn’t get him into the Oval Office; although the fraud perpetrated by the Clinton camp may have had something to do with that too.

The point I’m trying to get at is that we are being played by both those who seek our votes, and those who wish to deprive us of our money. The marketing teams for both political candidates and products know which buttons to push to get people to either buy their product or vote for their candidate. Take for instance Obama’s campaign slogan Yes we can. What exactly does that tell you about Obama and what he stands for? Absolutely nothing! Yes we can what; go fishing, take a trip to Hawaii?

If you want my honest opinion, I see a lot of similarity between a presidential election cycle and the Super Bowl. Both are gala events filled with all kinds of pageantry and pomp and circumstance. The news media loves elections as they give their pundits the platform to showcase their intimate knowledge of the candidates and their vast understanding of the workings of our political system. The people love them because they make them feel like they are participating in democracy and actually have a voice in the direction our country takes.

I would not go so far to say I do not have a vested interest in the outcome of a presidential election cycle, I can say that I see them for what they are; circuses designed to keep the people divided along the two party paradigm, and lead them by their noses into voting for a candidate who has no intention of upholding the oath they will take should they win.

I find it both humorous and a sad commentary on the American Public that they are so easily fooled into voting for this candidate, or that candidate. I want you to read something now, and later I’ll tell you who said it, “The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts all affected propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.” (My emphasis)

These candidates for president parade around the country, holding rallies which allow them to share their vision for America’s future. The fact that people vote for these candidates by the millions based upon those promises only shows me the extent of the ignorance of the American Public in regards to how our system of government is supposed to function.

Although he shunned the title, James Madison has come to be known as the Father of our Constitution. Two years before our Constitution was written Madison wrote something altogether different; an article opposing a religious assessment upon the people of Virginia. In this Memorial and Remonstrance Madison states, “The preservation of a free government requires, not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained, but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people.”

There is a lot to be gained from a thoughtful examination of that statement. First off Madison says that “The preservation of a free government requires…” What does he mean by that? In the 19th century Lysander Spooner, an anarchist and political commentator, stated, “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” Just because you are allowed to go to the polls and choose from among a whole gaggle of candidates for any given office does not mean that the government these candidates seek a position in will respect the limits drawn around their powers, or the protections instituted to secure your rights. If the people do not understand, or don’t care, what the Constitution says are the powers given government, it becomes an easy task for the various branches of government to do exactly what Madison warned about; maintain the boundaries which separate each branch of government.

People vote for these candidates seeking the presidency based upon the campaign promises they make to the American Public. Where, might I ask, does the Constitution allow for the president to fulfill any of these promises? Upon being elected a president may offer suggestions to Congress, but if Congress does not act upon those suggestions the president cannot sidestep their authority and act unilaterally via Executive Orders or Presidential Decree. After all, our Constitution did not provide for the election of a King, only the position of an Executive whose job was to ensure the laws passed by Congress were faithfully executed.

Why then all the fuss over who becomes president when, after all, he, or she, (should we ever elect a woman president), is nothing more than a glorified CEO? If Congress is the lawmaking body, as the Constitution declares it to be, why do we pay so little attention to whom represents us within that body, and whether or not they adhere to the specific powers granted them by the Constitution?

When was the last time, aside from Ron Paul, that you heard a candidate for president from either of the two political parties mention the limits placed upon the office they seek by the Constitution? When was the last time you heard a candidate for president say that they would veto any bill that they felt was not within the power of Congress to pass?

Yet today our government routinely passes laws, and our presidents sign them, which overleap the powers granted government by the Constitution; and the people of this country don’t seem to care.

Before I continue I want to make it clear that I am not singling out Donald Trump for anything I am about to say; just using him and some of the things he said, and what people are asking of him, as examples.

Trump has said that he wants to bring jobs back to America, yet is that part of the duties of the president? James Garfield, the 20th President of the United States, once said, “It is no part of the functions of the National Government to find employment for the people, and if we were to appropriate a hundred millions for his purpose, we should only be taxing 40 millions of people to keep a few thousand employed.”

Trump has also promised to ask Congress to enact legislation to repair our crumbling infrastructure. Yet again, is this authority granted our government? According to James Madison it wasn’t. While serving as our 4th President he vetoed an internal improvements bill from Congress, saying, “Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” and which sets apart and pledges funds “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,” I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.”

Then there is this; with the recent evacuation of the residents of Butte and Yuba Counties due to the damage to the spillway at Oroville Dam, many have asked why Trump hasn’t authorized federal funds to ease the public’s suffering. Yet once again, is this one of the things our government is authorized to do by the Constitution?

In 1822 our 22nd President, Grover Cleveland, vetoed such a bill, stating, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government out to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.”

It is because an overwhelming majority of the people in this country have never read, or do not understand or care what powers the Constitution grants our government that government does all these things which are in clear violation of the powers given them.

Yet when I speak out about such things I am told that somebody has to win, we may as well vote for the lesser of two evils, or the one who is making the best sounding promises. My question to all those who vote time and time again based upon this logic is; “Where is your line in the sand? At what point are you going to become so outraged with the abuse of power by your government that you decide to no longer participate in the fraud of choosing who will lead our country?”

I’m not taking a stand either saying that Trump has either good or bad intentions. I am only saying that many of the things that he proposes to do are not within his power, nor that of Congress, to do. Many of the things Trump wants to do need to be done; but they are not within the purview of the powers given our federal government; they are things that are the responsibility of the individual States to handle.

Let’s say Trump does succeed in overcoming the obstacles in his path and achieves many of his goals; then what? What is going to happen at the end of 4 or 8 years of a Trump presidency when either a typical Republican or Democrat finds their way into office?

Trump may be an aberration and may end up proving good for America; then again he may not. But the point is that after he leaves, unless the American people stop deciding whom to vote for based upon the unconstitutional campaign promises they make, things will quickly return to normal. George Washington once said that “The Constitution is my guide which I will never abandon.” Whether he adhered to that or not is of little importance; it is the principle of that statement that America needs to take to heart if we truly want to become great again.

Oh, and by the way, that quote I provided earlier came from a book entitled Mein Kamp…written by Adolf Hitler.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Follow The Money

From time to time I mention the two party paradigm; the supposed differences between the Republican & Democratic Parties. Sure, those running for office under both parties may have different views on certain issues; issues that are usually the hot topic items which are of concern to a majority of the voters during any election cycle. But are they truly that much different in regards to how well they adhere to the limits imposed upon government by the Constitution, or are they very similar in that regards? It does not seem to matter to people in this country that both parties are guilty of violating the limits the Constitution imposes upon government. The only thing that matters is that those limits be violated in support of issues, or agendas held by those of the two political parties.

All this aside, there is one area in which both political parties share some common ground; they both like to spend money they don’t have. Our government does not produce anything which can then be sold to fund its operation; therefore any funds they spend must come in via some form of taxation. When the government spends more than it takes in from taxes it is known as a budget deficit. As I sit here typing this, our government’s current budget deficit sits at around $591 billion.

When a government runs on a budget deficit it has but two options to choose from; it can either cut back on the services it provides until it reaches a level where the money it spends matches the amount it takes in via taxes, or it can borrow money to continue spending at its current levels. If it chooses to borrow money, the amount borrowed is known as the National Debt. As I sit here typing, our National Debt stands at roughly $19.9 trillion.

Are you familiar with the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP? The GDP of a country is defined as: the total value of goods produced and services provided in a country during one calendar year. Last year the Gross Domestic Product of the United States was roughly $18 trillion. What this means is that the United States government has accumulated more debt than the value of all goods and services produced in the United States for one year.

Many of our Founders opposed the idea of accumulating too much national debt. Robert Yates, who left the Constitutional Convention early due to its overstepping its just authority to amend the Articles of Confederation, wrote a series of articles under the pseudonym of Brutus in opposition to the Constitution. In one of these articles Yates stated, “I can scarcely contemplate a greater calamity that could befall this country, than to be loaded with a debt exceeding their ability ever to discharge.”

Writing from Monticello on July 12, 1816, Thomas Jefferson said, “I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers.” Also, in a letter to H. Thompkinson, Jefferson states, “I am not among those who fear the people. They and not the rich are our dependence for continued freedom, and to preserve their independence we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”

In his Farewell Address to the nation, George Washington wrote, “As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible…” Sparingly…I don’t think that word is even in the vocabulary of those who hold the seats of power in government. Through bloated budgets, pork projects to keep their constituents happy, the funding of programs the government was never meant to establish, and an almost constant state of war, our government has dug us into a black hole of debt that we will, most likely, never climb out of.

The creation of debt, or the use of credit by our government was never intended to be a way of life; rather a tool to be used in times of national emergency when the funds taken into the Treasury were not sufficient to cover unexpected situations like war.

You think that when you fill out your 1040’s and send them in to the IRS that the part they keep is paying for all these programs that the government operates. WRONG!!! When Reagan was president he set up a commission to find ways to cut waste and inefficiency in government. This Grace Commission issued its report to President Reagan in 1983; with one of their findings being, “100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt … all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government.”

Your taxes, my taxes, only go towards paying the interest on our national debt; not the principal, not the actual programs the government established which required them to borrow money in the first place…JUST THE INTEREST!

Let that sink in for a minute.

For a long time our government understood that debt was to be used sparingly and that it should be paid off in a timely manner so as not to burden future generations with the debt past generations had incurred.

For the first two years of George Washington’s administration the federal, or as it’s now called, Public Debt, was minimal; only the costs assumed by the government from the States in fighting the American Revolution. In his 3rd year as president the debt had reached $75.4 million; a tidy sum in those days.

The debt remained small, (although small is a relative number I suppose) for years, until in 1835 something amazing happened. In 1835 the national debt was only a mere $33,733; roughly the income of an average single adult today. What happened? Andrew Jackson happened. Andrew Jackson successfully fought the central bankers who had a stranglehold on our government via their control of our currency. Once this stranglehold was broken, Jackson was able to pay down our debt to almost nil. It was the first, and only time in our nation’s history that our debt was paid off to such an extent.

Of course that did not last long and by the time Honest Abe was sworn in as president our debt was up to $90.5 million. With the initiation of hostilities by Honest Abe against the South the debt skyrocketed by an astronomical 478% to $524 million; and by Lincoln’s third year in office the debt had reached $1 billion for the first time.

Then in 1913 something that defies the possibility of coincidence happened; Congress passes, (questionably I might add) the Federal Reserve Act; which was then signed into law by President Wilson, and the States, (questionably again I might add) ratify the 16th Amendment; giving them the authority to tax the income of every man, woman and child in America.

By President Wilson’s last year in office the national debt had hit $25 billion. Ironically, it was during the presidency of Ronald Reagan that our debt hit the trillion dollar mark for the first time. By the time Bill Clinton had served his 8 yrs as president the debt was $5 trillion. Then along came George W. Bush who doubled that to $10 trillion. Finally, in the 8 yrs of Obama’s time as president he added another $9 trillion; totaling the $19.9 trillion we owe today.

Where does all that money go? First of all you have to understand that the federal budget is split into two categories; mandatory spending and discretionary spending. Mandatory spending is money which is spent on programs that have already been enacted during past administrations. Yet this category alone can be confusing. You see, even though past administrations may have enacted a law which requires government to pay for the programs it created, the money is not always there to fund them.

This brings us to a sub-category of mandatory funding known as unfunded liabilities; things which the government is obligated to pay, though they have yet to be funded. These are things such as Social Security and Medicare; programs the government has enacted, and is required to fund, even though the money to fund them has not yet come into the Treasury.

As I have explained, our National Debt now stands at $19.9 trillion. The unfunded liabilities our government is obligated to pay out is almost ten times that much; standing at just over $105 trillion. Seeing as how our government has been running on a deficit for years, it is highly unlikely that tax revenue alone will be sufficient to pay for all these obligations our government has. So what this means is that, as the old saying goes, they will continue to borrow from Peter to pay Paul; building up more debt for future generations to deal with, or until the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

Then there is discretionary spending. This is spending that is part of an appropriations bill for the day to day expenses incurred by government. Discretionary spending covers areas like the annual budget for the military, the salaries of those working for government, transportation, education, et cetera et cetera.

Out of the 2017 fiscal year budget, mandatory spending comprises roughly 65% of it, with discretionary spending coming in second at 29% and another 6% spent on interest to the National Debt.

I hope I haven’t confused you too much; because it gets more complicated from there.

As I have explained, mandatory spending is money spent on things the government is obligated to pay out; such as Social Security. Did you know that 87% of the mandatory spending goes towards only two programs; Social Security and Medicare and other health programs? Social Security alone consumes 49% of the mandatory spending portion of the federal budget, with Medicare and other health related programs taking up 38%. The remainder is split between Food and Agriculture spending, Veterans Benefits, Transportation, and a few others.

Now if we take a look at the other side of the budget, discretionary spending, we see that only 6% of the discretionary spending goes towards the salaries of those in government itself. Wanna know where the majority of that money goes? Well 54% or $598 billion goes towards funding our military.
So if you take all that into consideration, Social Security, Medicare, and military funding account for 70% of the total federal budget.

Are you aware that for the 240 years of our nation’s existence it has only seen 18 years in which it has not been involved in any kind of war or conflict? That means that only 7.5% of the time our nation has been at peace with the rest of the world.

In today’s climate it is often considered extremely unpatriotic to question our countries involvement in wars of aggression to fight terrorism. Yet were you to go back to the writings of the men who fought for our nation’s independence, or established its system of government, you would find that they often spoke out AGAINST the excessive use of the military, or a constant state of war.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “Having seen the people of all other nations bowed down to the earth under the wars and prodigalities of their rulers, I have cherished their opposites, peace, economy, and riddance of public debt, believing that these were the high road to public as well as private prosperity and happiness.”

Can you tell me the last time the U.S. has been involved in a conflict when Congress has actually declared a state of war against another country? The last time that happened was nearly 75 years ago in 1941 when Congress declared war against Japan. Peace was declared in 1945, yet how many wars, or conflicts, has the U.S. been involved in since then? Why hasn’t there been a declaration of war from Congress to justify these conflicts?

The Constitution is clear on the demarcation between the power of Congress to declare war and the power of the Executive to conduct it once a state of war has been declared. In a letter written in 1793, former President George Washington stated, “The Constitution vests the power of declaring War with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorised such a measure.”

Our Founders based much of their understanding of systems of government, and the powers they should hold as compared to the rights of the individual from Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Governments. In Section 141 of Locke’s book we read, “Fourthly, The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands: for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others.” This is a legal maxim which states, “Delegata potestas non potest delegari” or “no delegated powers can be further delegated.”

Therefore, in drafting the Constitution, the Founders delegated the power of declaring war with Congress; not the President. In explaining their reasoning for doing so, James Madison told the Virginia Ratifying Assembly, “War should only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits.”

Besides killing people in astronomical numbers, what is the one thing war does? War makes people rich; that’s what it does. War makes the makers of bullets, bombs, tanks, planes, and all the other assorted implements of war filthy rich. War makes those who go in after it is over to rebuild the countries we’ve bombed into the Stone Ages rich. War makes the bankers who loan the money to government to finance these wars rich.

I have nothing against raising an army to defend our country against invasion or attack. I am, however, opposed to sending that army into other countries to fight just because they may pose us a threat in the future, because we disagree with their internal politics, or to safeguard the interests of US businesses.

While serving as Secretary of State, prior to his being elected as our 6th President, John Quincy Adams delivered a speech to the House of Representatives which outlined U.S. foreign policy. In his speech Adams declared, “America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, equal justice, and equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the inde-pendence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama, the European World, will be contests between inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.”

How many of you, after reading that, can say that our current foreign policy matches that of our government 200 years ago?

Has it never crossed your minds that many of these so-called enemies we fight may be creations of our meddling into the internal affairs of another sovereign nation, or region? How many problems have we created for ourselves? Osama bin Laden might never have been the threat he was had we not funded him and his holy warriors in their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein may not have been the thorn in our side he was had we not funded and equipped him in his war against Iran. Iran may not have been the problem it is for us today had we not funded and orchestrated a coup in 1953 to oust their democratically elected leader.

See where I’m going with all this?

And I haven’t even discussed the times the U.S. military has been used at the behest of the UN in some sort of peacekeeping mission, or because the UN Security Council issued some resolution which required military force to enforce.

I can’t remember who said it, or where I even saw it, but I once saw a slogan that read, “War is profitable, and business is booming.” That pretty much sums up the state our country has been in, especially since 9/11.

Upon the election of John F. Kennedy, President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered an address to the people of America warning of undue influence by the military industrial complex. I would like to share a few select passages from Eisenhower’s address with you.

In Section IV of his address Eisenhower states, “A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.” Ever since the advance of nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction, the need for a well trained and well equipped military is undeniable.

Eisenhower then goes on to say, “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.”

However, Eisenhower then warns, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

There is a saying that I hear frequently; especially in movies about cops trying to find and arrest bad guys; “Follow the money.” When talking about war, who gets rich and who shoulders the burden of making people rich? As I have explained, bankers, bomb-makers and the military industrial complex in general get rich; while the average American is saddled with the responsibility of paying off the costs of these military operations; just as Madison said in 1788, “War should only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits.”

In his book War is a Racket, retired Marine Corps Major General writes, “The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits — ah! that is another matter — twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent — the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let’s get it.”

Butler is also quoted as saying, “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

Is that what our military has become; strong arm enforcers for business interests? Is that what we send our young men and women off to fight and die for? How many Americans have the courage to come out from behind their banner of patriotism and take a long hard look at the why as to why we are fighting all these wars? How many have the courage to stand up and question all the power being given, not only the military industrial complex, but the whole arena of national security?

How many rights have we lost since this war on terror started; and people are okay with that because if you’re not with the US you’re with the terrorists? On June 29, 1787 James Madison stated, “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst.foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”

In a 1798 letter to Thomas Jefferson, Madison also stated, “Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions agst. danger real or pretended from abroad.”

I know I have focused a lot on war and the expenses of it. Yet I’ve barely scratched the surface if you also take into consideration how much money the U.S. spends of both military and foreign aid, and how much we spend on military contractors who go over to these war torn countries to rebuild the damage all this fighting has caused. Not to mention the refugees who flee these war torn lands, and who we are expected to allow to come into our country; often harboring deep seated hatred for our interference in the internal affairs of their homeland.

The whole point I am trying to get at is that our country is going broke spending money like there is no tomorrow. People continue to expect more and more from their government when there isn’t enough money coming into government to fund the things it does now. Add to that a constant state of war, which is making some people insanely rich, and we’ll never see daylight from the black hole of debt our government is digging us into. Not to mention the fact that we are losing our freedoms right and left; and for what; so that some guy who sits behind a desk counting numbers can add a plus mark to some spreadsheet and the stock prices and profits of companies like Lockheed can go up?

But that’s okay, Trump is going to fix all this and make America great again. And if he isn’t, I’m sure the Democrats will elect someone in 2020 who will. And if you believe that I have some land on Mars I’d be willing to sell you.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Let’s See How Much Sense You Can Make Of This

There is a place in the United States known as the Four Corners; the only place in the continental U.S. where four states borders meet. This location is at the Southeast corner of Utah, the Southwest corner of Colorado, the Northeast corner of Arizona, and the Northwest corner of New Mexico. Although there has been some argument that it does not sit upon the exact location of the borders, there is a monument there marking the location. This monument consists of a disc that looks like this:

One could conceivably stand on this disc in such a manner as to be in 4 States at the same time. If that alone is not enough to boggle your mind; consider this. Let’s say you had an ounce of marijuana in your possession when you stood upon that monument; you would not be breaking any laws in Colorado. However, if it were for recreational, and not medical use, you would be in New Mexico. Then in Arizona if you purchased it from a State run dispensary for medical conditions you would not be guilty of a crime, but if you had it for recreational use you would be. Then in Utah it wouldn’t matter; you would be a criminal.

This is just one example of how laws vary from State to State. Then there is this; the city of Lake Tahoe sits atop the California/Nevada border. There is a line running through town that if you straddle, you are in two states at once. If you were facing North, your right foot would then be in Nevada and your left foot in California. In Nevada it is legal to own a Taurus Judge pistol; a pistol that shoots both a .45 caliber round AND a .410 shotgun shell. However, that gun is illegal in California because their State Legislators have decreed it to be a short barreled, or sawed off shotgun. Therefore, if I held that gun in my right hand I would technically be committing no crime, but if I transferred it to my left hand I would.

Crazy, huh?

If that weren’t bad enough there is the fact that the federal government also passes laws; often regarding the same subjects I just discussed. For instance, the State of California just legalized the recreational use of marijuana; which means that according to California law a person can partake of the relaxing benefits of a naturally occurring plant. HOWEVER, if an employer were to conduct a random urinalysis and find that some of its employees have been smoking marijuana, they can choose to enforce federal, not State laws, and terminate their employment.

It does not matter that marijuana leaves residual traces of its use in a person’s body much longer than alcohol; meaning a person may smoke it on a Saturday night and then still test positive for it on a Wednesday two weeks later; they could still see themselves fired for violating the law. Yet how many people come to work on a Monday, still hungover from a night of drinking on Sunday? Yet they are not guilty of any crime; even if they are so hungover their job performance suffers. How many functioning alcoholics are there in the work force right now; yet someone who might choose to occasionally partake of marijuana faces the threat of loss of employment.

Then there is this; the Constitution makes no mention of what substances a person may put into their bodies. In the 1920’s when the people wanted to make the possession and consumption of alcohol illegal they did so by ratifying the 18th Amendment. Thirteen years later they repealed the 18th Amendment with the 21st Amendment. That is the proper way to make laws which affect the lives of the people within the United States.

However, there has never been a Constitutional Amendment making the use of marijuana a crime…NEVER!!! The criminalization of marijuana has been an arbitrary act by our lawmakers, and therefore, is technically unconstitutional. But so are a lot of other things they do; and nobody seems to care about those either.

When it all boils down to it, that right there is the problem; nobody knows, nobody cares what the limitations are upon the power given government to restrict what a person may, or may not be allowed to do. Yet that is what liberty is; the ability to be free to do with yourself and your belongings as you please, as long as you do not threaten the life or liberty of another.

John Locke put it thusly; “TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. … The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions…”

Thomas Jefferson stated it like this; “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

When our Constitution was being considered for adoption by the States, James Madison, along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay wrote a series of articles for the people of New York, offering their reasons why the people should accept this new system of government. These articles are now known as the Federalist Papers. In Federalist 45 Madison assured the people of New York, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” (My emphasis)

Where in the Constitution does it give government the power or authority to make the consumption of certain substances illegal? A person should be allowed to put whatever they want into their bodies; after all, is that not the same basic argument the pro-abortion movement uses in regards to a woman’s right to choose?

Now I’m not saying all substances are good, or that they do not have bad side effects; and that each person who uses these substances should be held accountable for their actions while under the influence of them. But to criminalize their use by arbitrarily passing a law making the use of them illegal is tyranny; plain and simple. And for employers who enforce these unconstitutional laws upon their employees, they are just as guilty of being tyrannical, as they could have chosen to stand up for a person’s rights rather than choose to enforce an unjust and unconstitutional law.

And if I haven’t scrambled your mind enough already; there is this as well. As much as I find this distasteful; the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment can legally be restricted by a State; making gun laws so complicated and varied that you never know what they are from State to State.

Whilst the Constitution was being argued in the various State Assemblies, one of the biggest concerns was that it contained no bill of rights. In fact, this concern was big enough that it almost threatened to derail the ratification of the Constitution. As much as Madison and Hamilton found it unnecessary, they agreed to produce a bill of rights after the government went into effect; if only the States would ratify the Constitution first.

The preamble to a document is basically an opening statement; a statement of intent. The preamble to the Bill of Rights states, “THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

The Bill of Rights, when it was written and ratified, applied ONLY to the government created by the Constitution; it was not applicable to the States. Most States already had some manner of bills of rights within their State Constitutions; why bother adding one to the federal constitution if it would apply to the States. No, the Bill of Rights, as it was written, applies only to the federal government created by the Constitution. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States.

Our Founders knew that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was unalienable; and therefore they may have never foreseen the time when people were so ready and willing to see laws passed within the States which restricted that right. Then again, maybe they did. The point is that the Bill of Rights was to apply only to the federal government, not the State governments.

This belief was affirmed in the 1833 Supreme Court Case of Barron v. Baltimore in which the SCOTUS held that the Bill of Rights ONLY applied to the federal government; and was not applicable to the States.

That all changed when the 14th Amendment was accepted as being lawfully ratified, (which it wasn’t; but that’s a subject for another discussion). The 14th Amendment was never meant to apply to you or I; it was proposed and adopted to give the newly freed slaves some sort of status and legal protection under the Constitution. In short, it created an entirely new category of citizenship just for them; U.S. Citizens.

This was upheld in the 1872 case of Van Valkenburg v. Brown, wherein the Court held, “No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction…owes his status of Citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.”

Yet the principle author of the 14th Amendment, Congressman John Bingham, believed that the wording of it was such that it applied the first 8 amendments of the Constitution to the States. This idea came before the SCOTUS in 1947, and they ruled that the 14th Amendment did not apply the Bill of Rights to the States, regardless of Justice Black’s dissenting opinion.

However, over the years the SCOTUS has loosened its opinion and begun applying the concept of incorporation towards the Bill of Rights; meaning that now they have ruled that some of these rights apply directly to the States, while others don’t. Justice Black still argued for total incorporation, but was never successful in seeing it accomplished.

That is why the Supreme Court could, technically, be legally correct in their ruling on the case of D.C. vs Heller, in which they say the right to keep arms is an individual right; but that the States may pass laws which restrict it to a certain extent.

This may be a whole lot of legal mumbo jumbo that makes no sense to you; believe me, it took me quite some time to wrap my head around it as well. But the fact is that our rights are unalienable; it is by our ignorance and our fear of becoming victims of gun violence, that we allow our State governments to pass laws which restrict that right. As long as their State Constitutions do not prohibit them from enacting these type gun laws, they are well within their right, and legal authority to do so; (and believe me, I had to swallow some bile when I said that).

But they could not pass those laws if the people of the State did not support them. Therefore any restrictions to your liberty can be traced back to a majority of the people of your State who do not know, or care about the nature of their rights; and who are willing to surrender them for the promise of safety and security.

What all the previous pages all boil down to is this; most people no longer understand what liberty means, nor do they care. They only want to feel safe and secure, and are more than willing to see their freedoms taken from them a bit at a time to achieve that security.

John Adams once wrote to his wife, “Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.” He must be sitting up there in Heaven sick to his stomach; I know I am.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

My Thoughts On The Crisis At Lake Oroville

I know that many of you, by now anyway, are at least aware of the situation in Northern California and the crisis at the dam located in Oroville, California. Before I go into the meat and potatoes of this, I need to provide a little background.

When I was 10 or 11 I moved from San Jose, California to Oroville, just south of the dam that was designed to both store, and regulate the flow of water from the tributaries feeding into the Feather River. I used to fish off the face of the dam, as well as on a peninsula that extended parallel to the inlet to the spillway. I can’t count the times I went fishing on the lake itself, or went waterskiing or tubing on the lake. So I am quite familiar with the layout; although not the particulars of the construction of the dam itself.

When I moved to Oroville the dam had just been dedicated by, then governor, Ronald Reagan. It was touted almost as a wonder of the world due to the fact that it was earthen filled and so big. But it is critical that people realize it was a State funded project by the California Department of Water Resources; not a federally funded project.

On August 1, 1975 a 5.7 magnitude earthquake hit the Oroville area; causing fears that the dam could break. I remember the day as if it just happened yesterday; I had just gotten home from a record store with the new release from Blue Oyster Cult; Agents of Fortune. I had just dropped the needle onto the vinyl when the whole house began shaking. For a week we camped out in the back yard until the aftershocks stopped and the danger of our house collapsing subsided.

I have also, throughout my life, had to evacuate due to some sort of disaster. I was stationed in the panhandle of Florida for 3 years at Eglin AFB and had to evacuate when Hurricane Elena threatened to make landfall at, or near, Eglin. I was stationed at Clark Air Base when, on June 15, 1991 Mount Pinatubo erupted; forcing the evacuation of all but a handful of people from both the Clark and Subic Bay installations.

I have had to evacuate the house I currently live in twice now; once for flooding back in 1997, and now due to the problems with the spillway at Lake Oroville. So I am familiar with the hardships of having to evacuate in a hurry, and also a bit more experienced; so I know what to do and how to go about it without panicking.

I am also relatively well prepared to ride out any kind of emergency; such as an extended power outage or other situation where the things most people take for granted are suddenly cut off. We have enough food and water to last awhile, and enough ammunition to ward off looters should the need arise.
I say all this because this is not, as the old saying goes, my first rodeo. I take the old Boy Scout motto; Be Prepared, to heart.

Having been through all that, and sitting here and read all the wild rumors about the current situation in Oroville, I have been forced to once again sit here and write my thoughts on this whole fiasco before my brain overheats.

First off, I’m seeing a lot of blame being passed around; especially to President Trump for not immediately offering federal assistance for those affected by the evacuation orders which were issued. Some are saying he is not offering assistance to spite Governor Brown and his position on Sanctuary Cities in the State of California. I don’t know whether this is true or not, but if so maybe we ought to be rethinking our position on supporting illegal aliens, and politicians who pander to them, rather than blaming Trump. Maybe instead of blaming Trump we should blame Governor Brown and all the mayors who refuse to enforce what is, one of the few laws our federal government has the authority to enforce upon the States.

Plus, and I hate to beat a dead horse, people need to stop expecting the federal government to come to their aide every time there is a crisis of some sorts. Way back when our government came into existence, each State was an independent and sovereign nation unto itself. The governments of these State/Nations were responsible for providing for all the needs of the residents within their respective States. It was never intended that the federal government assume that responsibility, or be saddled with it.

Is that part of the problem; that we have come to rely/expect too much from the federal government, and not expect it from the State where the responsibility is supposed to rest? Before out government was created each State was an independent sovereign nation unto itself. Each State government was responsible for managing the internal affairs of that State. The federal government created by our Constitution was designed to manage the interaction between the States; i.e. as in regulating commerce, providing a common currency, and establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, and at the same time providing for the common defense, while the remaining powers were reserved to the States.

In 1788, James Madison, arguing in favor of ratification of the Constitution, assured the people of New York, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” (Federalist 45 My emphasis)

Almost from the beginning that division, or balance between State and federal power has shifted to where people now rely upon the federal government for things which are solely the responsibility of the State to manage; as in funding for emergencies within the States. In short, agencies such as FEMA should not even exist as they are not within the specific powers granted the federal government and the expenditure of funds from the federal treasury upon emergency relief and internal improvements are NOT authorized by the Constitution.

In 1817 this same James Madison, now acting as President, vetoed a bill for internal improvements, sending it back to Congress with the following message, “Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” and which sets apart and pledges funds “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,” I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.”

Has our Constitution changed over the course of the 200 years since Madison vetoed that bill, or is it that the people do not know, nor do they care, that those powers are not granted the federal government?

If the dam, or the spillways to that dam needed improvements, or upkeep, it was the responsibility of the government in Sacramento to ensure that the dam was kept in proper, and safe, working order…not the responsibility of Washington D.C. Every governor since Ronald Reagan, (who dedicated the dam in 1968), has allowed the spillways to reach the point that we are now faced with the problem of spending millions upon millions of dollars to repair, or replace them.

I keep seeing all these Facebook posts saying that maybe Governor Brown should not be spending all this money providing benefits to illegal aliens and should have been spending money to fix the spillway at Lake Oroville. Listen, I have no love for Gerry Brown, but to put the blame solely upon him is disingenuous and should be spread out to all former governors who, as some RUMORS go, ignored warnings from 3 environmental groups that the regular spillway might fail due to erosion along its sides.

Now that I’ve mentioned rumors, I’d like to delve into all the rumors and fear-mongering I witnessed on Facebook after the initial evacuation order was sent out. I swear, if you believe everything people were saying you would have thought that God had once again opened the floodgates of Heaven and was ready to wipe man off the face of the Earth for a second time.

When the evacuation order came out the news was reporting that there was an ‘imminent’ failure of the emergency spillway and that if it gave out a 30ft wall of water was going to be released into the Feather River; causing flooding in all areas along the banks of the river. I found the warning to be sufficient cause to pack up our bugout items and head for a safer location.

The next morning, after staying the night in a friend’s house out of harm’s way, I was sipping on my morning coffee watching the Kelly Ripa show. She said that the big bags of boulders that the helicopters were transporting were being dropped into the gaping hole in the concrete spillway to repair the damage to it. Having just watched the news broadcast from KCRA I knew that her statement was untrue. Yet those watching her show, and not having access to local broadcasts, would believe it to be true. While NBC News did later provide more accurate information; this is how rumors spread and that, in turn, causes panic if those rumors are that people’s lives are in imminent danger.

Sure, it is prudent to be prepared for any emergency that might arise, it is also prudent to not take everything you hear to be the truth. Just because somebody says they know somebody that worked at the dam, or their friend heard something, does not make it true. Verify first before blindly accepting that what you hear is the gospel truth, and worse, spreading it for others to read. Again, that is how panic starts.

The way I look at life is that; shit is going to happen. All you can do is be the best prepared for it when it does, and then pray for the best. That’s one thing about being prepared; it lowers your anxiety levels when emergencies arise. The only time I got a bit anxious was when the emergency evacuation order came down and I called my son at work and told him he had to get home immediately. His acting supervisor at work said that she had not heard anything from her boss, therefore my son had to stay until they closed down for the day. I gave her the number to the sheriff’s office and told her to call and verify what I had said, but she would not do so; choosing rather to wait for her boss to give her any info.

Just as people spreading rumors cause problems, people who refuse to verify legitimate concerns cause problems for those who are in possession of actual facts. Had I been face to face with that woman; she would be missing a few teeth now.

Anyway, this crisis has done one thing for me; it has reaffirmed my belief that people are going to go on believing what they have been told without verifying whether those things are truthful or not. That goes to both the rumors that begin flying when a crisis arises, and when it comes to passing blame around for the cause of that crisis; or who is responsible for providing aide to those during that crisis.

In short; aside from the damage to the spillway, not much has changed in regards to how people act in response to a crisis.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Poisoning The Well

Recently I’ve been hearing with increasing frequency the use of the word Snowflake to describe certain people, or categories of people, in the United States. I understood the basic context the word was used as, but had to look it up to see what the actual meaning was. According to various sources a Snowflake, or the Snowflake Generation, is a term used to characterize young adults as being prone to taking offence at ideas that challenge their beliefs, and are less resilient than previous generations to insults or views that differ from their own. I suppose the term is fitting, because just like a real life snowflake, when it gets hot they have a meltdown.

I know I have railed against the left/right paradigm as it relates to political parties, but one cannot deny that there is a distinct schism in the thinking of the American people. For the most part you have two groups in this country; those who align themselves with the Democratic Party, or liberals; and those who align themselves with the Republican Party, or so-called conservatives.

It has been my experience that both sides get awful defensive when you begin threatening their belief systems; but it is those on the left, or the liberals, who get the most butt hurt when you counter their rhetoric with facts. Is this is because they believe they have the moral high ground due to the fact that their beliefs aim to help all these varied groups, or causes, and therefore anyone who challenges their beliefs is a cold hearted son of a bitch; or is it something altogether different?

The primary difference between the two belief systems, at least as I see it, is that those on the right believe that they stand for the principles upon which this country was founded; however misguided that belief might be. On the other hand, those on the left seek to tear down those old belief systems and institute their version of a Utopian society where all are equal and live comfortable lives.

Again, I could be wrong, but I believe the Snowflake Generation, or Snowflakes as they are called, are the inevitable consequence, or grandchild of the 60’s love and peace movement. The hippy movement may have died, but the beliefs those people held as it pertains to equality, and a Socialist lifestyle have only moved on into academia and are being taught to our youth in our systems of education. In short, our children are being taught to be modern day hippies; without the LSD and good music that is.

Yet still, the hippies from the 70’s had one thing that these modern day Snowflakes don’t; a thick skin. They grew up in an era where their beliefs were not commonly accepted and therefore were accustomed to having them questioned and insulted. These modern day Snowflakes are too thin skinned and cannot handle criticism or the questioning of their beliefs.

The difference between the 60’s and now though is that many of the beliefs these people hold are more commonly accepted and they believe they hold the high moral ground; making anyone who questions, or threatens those beliefs a danger to society.

Listen, I’ve said it time and time again, I am no supporter of Trump. I do not follow, or support, candidates. I support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If a candidate happens to do something that is in concurrence with those, then I support that particular action. But I do not follow or support any candidate simply because they are the one my party chose to sit in any given office in government.

That said, the way these Snowflakes are reacting to Trump and his temporary ban on immigration absolutely boggles my mind. That fact that it is within Trump’s authority as President to do so does not matter to them. The fact that numerous Presidents in the past, from both sides of the political aisle have done so does not seem to bother them. The fact that what Trump did is codified in Title 8 of our National Code does not seem to bother them. They are right and Trump is a racist pig for doing so; that’s all that matters to them.

What’s scary is that, not only is this sentiment widely held among the populace of this country, it is also held by many in political office; such as the governors of many States; including my home State of California. But then again, California was the birthplace of the hippy movement and it is to be expected that those in office today are more likely to share the same beliefs and sentiments of those from the love and peace movement of the 60’s.
What scares me the most though is how as the beliefs these people hold in regards to a whole plethora of issues become more prevalent, they become the politically correct norm; and all those who question those beliefs, no matter how many facts they provide, find their arguments targeted for insult, or censorship. When that happens, free speech goes out the window and the First Amendment’s protection of it dies along with it.

I have lost track of the times I’ve been called names because I have provided facts which prove these Snowflake types to be wrong. I cannot count the times I have been turned in at work for providing evidence which shoots their politically correct beliefs down in flames.

It seems to me that their idea of free speech is that they are free to say whatever they want, but if anyone questions what they say they are to be silenced by whatever means are necessary. Free speech is a two way street people; if you are free to say something, I am free to say something which contradicts what you just said. If your position cannot be supported with facts, then that is not MY problem, it’s YOURS! Maybe you should change your opinion if it is not backed up by facts. Or is that how things work today; feelings are all that matter and facts are irrelevant?

How can you have a serious political debate with people who do not allow facts into the discussion? Seriously, if you can’t answer that then there is no use in me even continuing this commentary!

I have provided over and over enough information which should cause anyone with half a functioning brain to question the belief that the Civil War was fought solely over the issue of slavery; yet people persist in holding to the belief that anyone who displays a Confederate Battle Flag, or supports the Confederacy is racist. The very words of the man responsible for the Civil War, (Abraham Lincoln), don’t seem to matter to them. The fact that he considered the white race superior to the blacks does not matter; the fact that he wanted to colonize them outside the U.S. does not seem to matter to their argument; the fact that he clearly stated that what he did in regards to the issue of slavery was only to further his cause of holding the Union together does not matter to them.

All they know is the rubbish they have been taught in school and that’s all they have to support their beliefs. Anything which threatens those beliefs is not permissible and those speaking it are to be condemned and silenced.
Free speech my ass!

The same goes for those who support enforcement of our immigration laws; we are considered racist and our views are silenced by the politically correct majority. The idea that immigrants should assimilate into our society and not force us to accept or tolerate their belief that undermine our culture and belief system is considered racist and those speaking it are deemed worthy of all sorts of insults and condemnation. If one were to come out and publicly say that English is the spoken language of America, and that you either speak it, or shut up, they would be chased out of the city they live in; especially if that city is in California somewhere.

Is it racist to stand up for the beliefs that made America into the country it is today? I’m not saying that everything our Founders believed in was right; slavery of any kind is not, and that’s an undeniable fact. But the belief that a people should be united by commonly held beliefs and a common language is the glue that holds a country, and a people, together. You begin messing with that and the country falls apart at the seams.
Prior to our Constitution going into effect a public debate was held over its merits, and it’s perils. Those who supported the Constitution were known as Federalists. Those who opposed it were called Anti-Federalists. The most commonly known Federalists were the three men who combined efforts to produce the Federalist Papers; James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay.

John Jay would go on, once the government outlined by the Constitution went into effect, to become the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In Federalist 2 Jay writes, “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)

Then, nearly 50 years after our Constitution had gone into effect, a Frenchman by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville wrote an epic treatise entitled Democracy in America. In his work he states, “The emigrants who came at different periods to occupy the ter- ritory now covered by the American Union differed from each other in many respects; their aim was not the same, and they governed themselves on different principles.

These men had, however, certain features in common, and they were all placed in an analogous situation. The tie of language is, perhaps, the strongest and the most durable that can unite mankind. All the emigrants spoke the same language; they were all children of the same people.” Again, de Tocqueville brings up the fact that America was established by people who spoke the same language and that language was the glue that bonded us all together as one nation.

As recently as the early 1900’s that was still a widely held belief. In 1907 Theodore Roosevelt mad the following comments, “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” (My emphasis)

Again we find a person who held the highest position in American government saying that immigrants MUST assimilate into our culture and that they MUST speak our language.

Even after leaving the presidency Roosevelt spoke often of this subject. In a speech delivered in 1916 Roosevelt said, “Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an industrial asset.” (My emphasis)

Then in a Memorial Day celebration speech delivered in St. Louis, Missouri, Roosevelt said, “I appeal to all our citizens, no matter from what land their forefathers came, to keep this ever in mind, and to shun with scorn and contempt the sinister intriguers and mischiefmakers who would seek to divide them along lines of creed, or birthplace or of national origin.”

Is that not exactly what this whole idea of multiculturalism is; a scheme to divide us along the lines of creed, birthplace, or national origin? How can we say we are the UNITED States of America when we have people living in this country whose loyalty lies to their native land? How can we have a UNITED States of America when we do not require that those immigrating to America learn OUR language?

I have nothing against immigrants coming to live here, but let them come here with a love for the freedom that America provides; not to turn it into another version of the country they fled from to come here.

What is happening to America is that our entire belief system, at least the belief system which led our Founders to establish a country based upon individual liberty, is being undermined in a two pronged attack. Our beliefs and history is under attack by those who falsely call themselves educators and teach revisionist history. And our culture and belief systems are being diluted by allowing immigrants to come here and not requiring that they assimilate into our culture.

Listen, I married a foreigner, but she became American, she speaks English; even when her friends speak to her in her native language Tagalog, and she has never held out her hand seeking handouts from the government. She came here and became, as Roosevelt demanded all immigrants do, an American and nothing but an American.

She has not given up her love for the Philippines, but while living here she follows our rules and obeys our customs; which is more than I can say for most of those people who these Snowflakes say Trump is denying them the right to enter America.

And just to show that the truth does not matter; how many would be willing to accept a gentleman’s bet that within days of me handing this out to people at work I am called into Human Resources at work once again for being insensitive and incendiary?

And that, right there, explains all that is wrong with America today. The beliefs and values which made America into the greatest nation on the Earth are under constant attack, and anyone seeking to revive them comes under attack for being politically incorrect.

The well is being poisoned, and people are drinking that poisoned water by the gallon. America is more than a tract of land spreading from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean, it is, or it was anyway, a land where certain beliefs and values where shared by those who came here to make America their home. Those values are under attack and those who speak out against these attacks are insulted and their voices silenced by the PC Police.
As Charles A. Beard once said, “You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.”

The land which comprises the United States of America will still be here long after the human race leaves the Earth. The question is, will the UNITED States of America continue to exist while the human race still occupies it?

Posted in General | 1 Comment

We All Lost When Lee Surrendered At Appomattox

The day was September 17, 1787 and the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention were to gather together one final time to cast their votes for or against the document they had produced. Some had left the convention earlier; stating they felt the convention had overstepped its just authority, while others had pushed on with their plan to scrap the Articles of Confederation and create an entirely new system of government for America.

Prior to the vote being taken a speech prepared by Ben Franklin was read to the delegates by James Wilson. Franklin was suffering from too much pain to stand and deliver the speech himself, so he had Wilson deliver it for him.

A portion of Franklin’s speech is as follows: “Mr. President, I confess, that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present; but, Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it; for, having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration to change my opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise….

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults—if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other. I doubt, too, whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better constitution; for, when you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?

It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does…”

Franklin openly admits that the Constitution may have faults in it, and that it may lead to despotism when no other form of government is suitable for the people it was written to govern. I suppose the only question we should be asking is, what did Franklin mean by that?

Many sacrifices and compromises took place in the drafting of this thing we call our Constitution. Madison had to sacrifice many of his original plans for it, and many of the States had to compromise on issues such as representation in Congress to obtain a finished document that all could support to a certain degree. That is what Franklin meant when he spoke of assembling a number of men with their prejudices, passions, errors of opinion and interests.

But, for the system of government created by this Constitution to work the way it was designed one vital thing needed to take place; the people needed to know what it said and what it meant; and then they needed to ensure that the people they selected to fill the various seats within the government it created with men who would uphold it.

What Franklin meant when he said that it would lead to despotism when the people have become so corrupted to need despotic government is that the people needed to stay both educated on the Constitution, and apply the things they learned in the selection of those who filled the seats of power within that government. When their principles, their understanding of the Constitution became corrupted then despotic government was the inevitable consequence, and the only thing which could govern a nation of people whose ideas and beliefs regarding the purpose of government was so varied.

I could go back to as far back as I remember and not find a single president who was elected because of his campaigning on a platform of firm adherence to the powers given the office he sought by the Constitution…NOT A SINGLE PRESIDENT; even Reagan.

I don’t know, is it because people feel that if their government isn’t continually passing new laws that it isn’t doing its job? Or, is it that people’s expectations of what government should do for them have become so twisted and perverted from what the Constitution says are the legitimate powers of government that they think the more government does for them the more efficient government is working?

Yet from the day that Franklin delivered his speech to the Philadelphia Convention there were those who warned of the dangers this proposed Constitution posed to the liberty of both the people and the States themselves.

These Anti-Federalists, as they were called, spoke of a consolidation of the independent States into an empire, or as Patrick Henry said on June 5, 1788, “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?”

Henry would go on to say, “But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire: If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your Government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: Such a Government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism: There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?”

If history does one thing, it either validates, or invalidates the warnings people give. The question is, does history validate, or invalidate what Patrick Henry warned the people about?

If you want my honest opinion, history has elevated Patrick Henry’s predictions to the level of prophetic; almost everything he warned us about has come to pass.

The Spring following the ratification of the Constitution Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Edward Carrington in which he stated, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” The speed at which liberty yielded and government gained ground depended entirely upon how closely the people adhered to the principles upon which their system of government was established. The less the people cared about adhering to the Constitutional limitations of governmental power, the faster government grew and liberty was lost.

I believe that this is what Franklin was speaking of when he spoke of the people’s being incapable of being governed by anything other than despotic government. I mean look at us today; how many people know what the Constitution says; let alone what the words meant back when it was written? How many people care that the laws our government passes no longer have any foundation in the powers given government by the Constitution? How many people even realize that the Constitution was written to represent both the States and the people, and that the States, ever since the Civil War, have become mere provinces of a centralized and all powerful government?

Whether you believe the Civil War was fought over slavery or not, it remains a crucial turning point in the balance of power between the central government and the governments of the States. The antebellum South sought for years to nullify those laws; especially those regarding the tariffs they were forced to bear, prior to exercising their last resort; separation from the Union. You can either take my word for it, or you can do some research on your own regarding the period of American History known as the Nullification Crisis; that’s entirely up to you. But for years the South, led by South Carolina and men like John Calhoun.

How many of you know that John Calhoun was Vice President of the United States, and that he resigned his position to run for the Senate so that he could better defend his State of South Carolina and its attempts to nullify what they felt to be unfair and unconstitutional tariffs?

For almost 30 years South Carolina fought a back and forth battle with the federal government until they felt they had reached a point in which their remaining in the Union was detrimental to the welfare of the people of South Carolina.

You have to realize that back then there was no such thing as an American Citizen; the people were citizens only of the State they resided in; and that’s where their loyalties lay as well. During that period of American history if you immigrated to America, then later became naturalized, you became a citizen of the State you lived in, not of the country of which that State was a part of.

Shortly after the 14th Amendment was ratified, 1875 to be exact, the Supreme Court delivered a ruling on the case of United States v. Cruikshank, in which it stated, “We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own…”

Also, during this time each State still believed itself to be a sovereign and independent nation that was part of a union of similar sovereign and independent States, and that it was their right at any time to say that they no longer wanted to be part of that Union. This is the underlying principle upon which America was founded, and it is expressed thusly in our Declaration of Independence, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Like I said, you can argue that slavery was the ONLY reason the Civil War was fought until you are blue in the face, but whether the reason South Carolina seceded in 1860 was due to perceived injustices, or actual injustices does not matter; they, as well as all the other States, believed that secession was their right; a last resort to stave off the exercise of unjust power by the federal government.

Eventually 11 States joined South Carolina in forming the Confederate States of America. They had lived nearly 3/4 a century as members of the Union and saw the flaws within the Constitution that Franklin spoke of.

Yet our Declaration of Independence does not simply state that it is a States right to just up and secede; it also states that they should seek to provide new guards for their future security. After 71 years of being governed under the Constitution of 1787 they saw the flaws contained within it and sought to establish a Constitution of their own which would prevent government from becoming abusive and tyrannical. Changes were made to the powers given government; especially taxation, and the means of amending the Constitution were made easier. The President was given the line item veto in which he could strike out any portion of a bill sent to him by Congress, and he could only serve one six year term with no eligibility for re-election. Also no funds from government could be spent on internal improvements of the individual States, unless they were for the improvement of harbors and the navigation of rivers. Even then, the costs were to be recouped by the imposition of duties upon river navigation.

What the South did was to essentially fix the flaws within the Constitution of the North; very much like those attending the Philadelphia Convention were only supposed to fix the flaws within the Articles of Confederation.

Abraham Lincoln could not allow the South to separate and become a nation of its own; it bore the brunt of all the tariffs which funded the government which he led and if he allowed them to leave it would leave his Treasury virtually empty.

When a group of Virginia Commissioners queried whether Lincoln would use force against the blooming Confederacy, especially in regards to their having their own Constitutional Convention in Charleston, Lincoln responded by saying, “But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery? Am I to let them go on… [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?”

Lincoln was between a rock and a hard place. He either had to let the South leave and form its own nation; free of his power of imposing tariffs upon them, and at the same time impose tariffs upon his crony Republican supporters in the North, or take the country to war to force the South into adhering to the Union. Lincoln chose war over peace with a neighbor to the South who only sought to be left alone by the government that was supposed to respect their rights.

When the South was forced to surrender at Appomattox Courthouse the principle that a State had the right to leave a voluntary Union of States was lost as well. The end result of the loss of the Confederacy was not the ratification of the 13th Amendment and the freeing of slaves, it was the final nail in the coffin of the consolidation of the States into a single empire of which the government was in control.

Forty years before the Civil War commenced, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to C. Hammond in which he declared, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated ….”

The day that Lee surrendered at Appomattox was the day that Jefferson’s statement came to fruition. It has all been downhill ever since.

You can vote for all the Hope and Change, or the Let’s Make America Great again you want, but it isn’t going to change the fact that our government is this HUGE monstrosity that regulates and restricts liberty. Our government spies upon us and we say, “If you don’t have anything to hide why should we fear our government spying on us?” If we step too far out of line we have a standing army, in the form of local law enforcement and a whole host of heavily armed governmental agencies ready to dispense their idea of justice upon us.

And yet people still have the audacity to say that this is the land of the free? Most Americans today would not know true freedom even if it came up and took a big old bite out of their asses!

But that’s okay as long as they still have jobs, homes to live in, food to eat, and plenty of garbage on the TV to keep them entertained. The concept of standing up for the principles upon which our nation was first established is as foreign to them as getting on a spaceship and travelling to distant galaxies. Most people are content in their servitude, leaving their precious cocoon of ignorance once every 4 years to argue whether their slave masters will be Republican or Democrat.

And thus Franklin’s prediction has come true, the people have become so corrupted that we are incapable of anything other than despotic government. Our Founders fought a war against their government to be free of its ability to bind them in all cases whatsoever. Is that not exactly what we have today where all the actions of our government, constitutional or unconstitutional, supersede the laws of the States or our Rights?

As Patrick Henry said in 1788, “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?” I would say the same to people in America today, “Can you not see that the things I am telling you are actually the case; are they not plainly so?”

You may not think you are a slave, but neither does a cow or a pig until it is led to the slaughterhouse. Keep that thought in mind…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

How Our System Has Gone Awry

In 1789 George Washington was chosen to be our first president under the newly ratified Constitution, with John Adams gaining the second most Electoral Votes; thereby becoming our first Vice-President. Whether Washington was the wisest choice, or a good president for that matter, I will leave it up to you to decide. My point in all this is to show that he was almost unanimously accepted as the obvious choice to be our nation’s first President due to his stature as the former Commander of the Continental Army.

Since Washington was the obvious choice for all Americans, it wasn’t until after he retired after two terms and left the choice of who would lead the nation to the American voters that political parties came into play. Throughout Washington’s tenure as President a silent war had been brewing among those selected to fill the seats of power in this government over how the Constitution should be interpreted to either restrict, or expand the powers given the government it established.

The battles between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton during Washington’s Cabinet meetings are said to have been epic and are at the very root of the political parties we know today. Jefferson was more of a mind that the federal government be limited by a strict interpretation of the powers specified by the Constitution. Hamilton, on the other hand, felt that the Constitution included many implied powers that the government could assume to regulate the affairs of the nation. The followers of Hamilton’s line of thinking became the Federalists, and those who supported Jefferson’s views become the Democratic-Republicans.

Although the names of the political parties changed over the course of time, the basic tenets they believed in remained relatively the same; that is until the period leading directly up to the Civil War, and thereafter.

George Washington, although he had Federalist leanings, could be classified as neutral. John Adams was clearly Federalist. But then Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams were elected; all of them Democratic-Republicans. With the change of the name from Democratic-Republican to simply Democrat Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan were also elected to serve as President.

During that time only William Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, and Millard Fillmore were elected from the Federalist or Whig Parties. So, for a very long time our country was led by those who adhered to a pretty strict interpretation of the powers given government by the Constitution; and up to that point in time the country ran relatively smoothly. The people enjoyed the most liberty of any people on the planet; with the government leaving them essentially free to manage their own affairs, and the country grew bigger and more prosperous than many could have foreseen.

But, as the rift between the two political beliefs grew, a simmering pot of animosity between the Republicans in the North, and the Democrats in the South, began brewing until it boiled over with the Civil War. The North had become increasingly more industrial, while the South remained a basically agriculturally based region. Although slavery was not the only cause which led the South to secede, it was an essential item in the plantation lifestyle of many in the South. Yet there were those small farmers and homesteaders who did not own slaves; yet still picked up arms when the North invaded their States.

On the other side, the industrial North required money to expand and grow, and that money often came in the form of government subsidies that were paid for from the Treasury; which was filled with the tariffs collected in Southern Ports of Entry.

What had happened is that the South remained relatively true to the beliefs of Jefferson; with a free market economy, while the North had evolved into a Crony Capitalist State in which the division between business and government became blurred; with both helping the other to a certain extent.

That is what the South was fighting against, not solely the North’s interference in the institution of slavery. As Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson stated, “If the North triumphs, it is not alone the destruction of our property, it is the prelude to anarchy, infidelity and the ultimate loss of free and responsible government on this continent. It is the triumph of commerce, banks and the factory.”

With the victory of the North over the South, and Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Courthouse, the North, and crony capitalism had won; just as Jackson had predicted. America has never been the same since; and our liberty has slowly withered away to a mere memory of what it once was.

You look at our government today and believe it represents you; it doesn’t. It represents the business interests which channel funds into campaign coffers, and wines and dines members of Congress and those in key positions throughout government. Sure, your votes may elect them, but their loyalty is not to you; of that you can be certain. They may pass laws which benefit you, but if you think about it, all these benefits do is create a dependence upon government by those who are governed. Is that what you call being free? I can’t speak for you, but I certainly don’t call dependence freedom.

That could be why Trump is finding himself coming under attack from all sides; because he is self financed and a wild card the special interests cannot control. This is not to say that I agree with everything Trump says, just my explanation for why he has come under such intense attack after only having been in office for two weeks.

I’m almost certain that had Ron Paul won a few years back the attacks would have been even more vicious; as Ron Paul was the closest thing to a Jeffersonian candidate that we’ve seen in decades. That would have scared the hell out of those who sit back behind the scenes and pull the strings on what laws our government passes, and whom those laws benefit.

I say that because the government we have today is not the same as the government we had under the Democratic Presidents prior to the Civil War. What we have today is the ideology of Hamilton, along with the cronyism of Lincoln on steroids.

Not only have the lines which separated business from government been blurred; they’ve been erased. Business interests now dictate policy and the regulations the huge bureaucracy implements which affect our lives. Through campaign contributions, lobbying, and a revolving door between business and government there is no true representation of the people in this country.

To give you a couple ideas of what I’m getting at, prior to becoming George W. Bush’s Vice President, Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton; a Houston based company that dealt primarily in oil and construction firm. When the second Gulf War broke out and Bush invaded Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, Halliburton, or its spinoff Kellogg Brown Root, KBR, was the top receiver of government contracts; everything from outsourcing traditional military positions to private contractors to providing housing, meals and other services to the troops.

And it’s not just the military industrial complex that has its hands in the pie, it is our financial, or Treasury Department that serves a different master than we believe. Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, before he became Treasury Secretary, was CEO of Goldman Sachs. But that revolving door works both ways. Arthur Levitt, former head of the Securities Exchange Commission left to become a Goldman Sachs adviser; while former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt left Congress to become a paid lobbyist for them.

Then there is the FDA who, if you ask me, is the puppet of the big pharmaceutical companies. There are billions of dollars to be made in treating disease. But what if you could prevent disease by alternative methods; wouldn’t the drug companies seek to lose those profits? Why is it that proven testing regarding alternative treatments are not given any consideration for approval by the FDA; yet they approve drug after drug to treat diseases that could conceivably be prevented by naturally occurring substances? It’s because if you prevent a disease the need for all those expensive drugs vanishes and the bottom line of the drug manufacturers suffers.

I was told, and I haven’t been able to verify this, that Oncologists who prescribe chemotherapy for cancer patients buy the chemo drugs directly from the drug companies, then tack on a percentage of profit for themselves, which they then pass on to the patient. Whether or not that is true or not, the fact is that a single chemo treatment can run upwards of $8,000. That’s a lot of money to lose if people found they could treat, cure, or prevent cancer with naturally occurring substances.

It might also possibly explain why my wife’s Oncologist was so adamant that she undergo chemo instead of relying on alternative methods to treat her breast cancer. While she did undergo a double mastectomy, she refused to undergo chemo or radiation therapy; instead choosing to treat it by changing her diet and taking naturally occurring supplements. Her doctor was, after repeated tests showing she was still cancer free, forced to tell her, “Whatever it is you’re doing, keep doing it because you’re as healthy as anyone who has never had cancer; maybe even more so.”

Now I’m not saying that every law our government passes, or every rule or regulation it enacts is influenced by business interests; but if there are huge profits to be made there is a good chance that the decision to implement that law, or regulation, was influenced somehow by lobbyists and the companies they represent.

And yet the people still believes the government represents them?

This is not a partisan issue; both parties are guilty of pandering to the special interests which subsidize their campaigns and lobby for passage of bills, or regulations, which benefit their interests.

In a free market society the government has no business aiding or influencing how our economy functions; that is the job of the consumers. If a business fails it is not the responsibility of the government to step in and bail them out, or pass laws which make their doing business easier; such as tax breaks or subsidies.

Almost all of our governments interference in the free market system can be traced back to a perversion of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The confusion comes from a misunderstanding of the word regulate. In the late 18th Century it did not mean to pass regulations governing something, it meant to ensure that it was in proper working order, or worked smoothly and without barriers.

James Madison warned about the way the meaning of words can change, and how the changes could affect one’s interpretation of what the Constitution meant, “I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense!”

In a letter to J.C. Cabell, dated February 13, 1835, Madison explained his interpretation of the Commerce Clause thusly, “I always foresaw difficulties might be started in relation to the interstate commerce power…Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain it grew out of the abuse of the power of the importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventative provision against injustice amongst the states themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.”

Yet these distinctions do not matter to people today. How many voted for Trump because he promised to bring jobs back to America? Yet is it part of his job description to create jobs? Former President James Garfield didn’t think so, “It is no part of the functions of the National Government to find employment for the people, and if we were to appropriate a hundred millions for his purpose, we should only be taxing 40 millions of people to keep a few thousand employed.”

I don’t expect to change anyone’s minds; at least not in the foreseeable future. All I can hope to do is to plant a seed of doubt as to the people’s trust that their government has their best interests in mind when they pass all these laws, rules, and regulations. All I can hope for is that this seed will grow and one day the people will have an epiphany and say, “Damn, Neal was right.”

If that happens to but a handful of people then my time behind this keyboard will not have been wasted…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

What Just Happened?

I’m sure that there are those out there celebrating now that the Departments of State and Homeland Security have resumed normal operations after District Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order against the implementation of President Trump’s ban on travel to the U.S. of people from certain specific countries. I can almost hear them now, “Trump just got bitch-slapped…YEEEHAW!”

While I have my own opinions on whether or not immigrants and refugees from those countries should be allowed entrance into the United States, they are of no relevance in what I’m about to discuss. I only wish to speak about what transpired from the view of who acted constitutionally, and who didn’t. Whether or not you support, or oppose President Trump’s ban on travel to the U.S. by those from these countries, I would hope that you could do the same; just consider what I’m about to say from a purely constitutional viewpoint. (I know, that’s asking a lot)

First, let’s discuss the chain of events that has led me to having this discussion. On January 20th Donald Trump was sworn in as our nation’s 45th President. While there are those who still believe that Trump is not their president, the fact is that of that date he became the lawful occupant of the Oval Office, and therefore is, for all intents and purposes, President of the United States.

Within his first week in office he issued five Executive Orders, EO 13769, dated January 27, 2017 being entitled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.

(If you recall, in discussing what may happen should Trump become President, I did mention that there was the distinct possibility that he may do more by Executive Order than did Obama; and as of this date my predictions have proven true. He has yet to sign any bill from Congress; seeking only to execute his will via Executive Order.)

Within a week several States filed various injunctions against Trump’s EO and its ban on travel from those specified in it. However, it was Washington State, and Judge James Robart of the United States District Court of Western Washington which acted first; issuing a temporary restraining order against the implementation of certain parts of Trump’s Executive Order.

I normally don’t do this, but this time I will break my own rule of not inserting web page links into my articles. The first link I wish to share with you is a link to Trump’s Executive Order banning entry into the U.S. by those from the countries he deemed further scrutiny should be given prior to their being allowed to enter our country.

The second is Judge Robart’s statement in issuing his restraining order against implementation of certain parts of Trump’s Executive Order. I would recommend you read both to understand fully what these two documents say.

Trump’s Executive Order 16769

Judge Robart’s Restraining Order:

Now that we’re up to speed on what transpired, let’s begin discussing who I believe acted unconstitutionally.

Does the Constitution authorize our government to decide who shall be allowed entrance into the United States? Yes it does, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 it declares that one of the powers given Congress shall be, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”

Was Trump’s Executive Order uniform; that is did it apply equally to those of all nations seeking entrance into the United States? No, it wasn’t; it applied only to certain specific countries; those countries being: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Libya.

Is there precedence for what Trump did? Yes there is. In 1882 President Chester A. Arthur singed The Chinese Exclusion Act, banning all skilled and unskilled laborers from China for a period of 10 years. Although this was not done via Executive Order, it was still not uniform in its scope of who was prohibited from entering the United States.

In 1903 President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Anarchist Exclusion Act, much of which remains in effect today in Title 8 of the United States Code; that code which covers our vast system of immigration laws. This was done in response to the murder of President William McKinley by Leon Czologosz, an American anarchist and the son of Polish immigrants.

In 1950 Congress attempted to ban the immigration of all those claiming loyalty to the Communist Party. The Internal Security Act of 1950 was vetoed by President Truman, but would have made it possible to deport anyone believed to be a member of the Communist Party. This legislation was passed by Congress at the height of the McCarthy era and the big Red Scare.

Then, as recently as 1980, President Jimmy Carter, after the US embassy was stormed and 52 Americans were taken hostage, placed bans on the immigration of Iranians into the US. At the same time he severed diplomatic ties with Iran and imposed sanctions upon them.

So yes, there are precedents for Presidents, or our government in general, for restricting the immigration of persons from specific countries into the US. Trump’s actions by signing EO 13769 are legally sound, at least according to Title 8 of the United States Code, which states;

“(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Those are the facts regarding the actions taken by President Trump. Now let’s look at the actions taken by the Court.

The Constitution not only created the Supreme Court, it also gave Congress the authority to establish “…Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court…”

At the lowest level in our federal judicial system are the District Courts; of which I believe there are 94. These districts are organized into circuits; each of which has an Appeals Court which can hear appeals to the rulings of the District Courts within their respective circuits. Then there is the Supreme Court which can hear appeals to the rulings rendered by the Circuit Courts; or Courts of Appeals.

Judge Robart is a District Judge, appointed by President George W. Bush, and he sits on the bench for one of the 94 federal districts which encompasses the area of Western Washington State.

The State of Washington filed an injunction; that is a legal request to halt the implementation of Trump’s Executive Order, with their District, which was then read and a temporary restraining order issued by Judge Robart. As I did not finish this writing in one sitting, the case has progressed further and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a motion by the Justice Department to restart the bans outlined in President Trump’s Executive Order.

For a judge to render a verdict which halts the implementation of an action by our federal government; especially one in which the federal government has jurisdiction, it must prove that the plaintiffs must, as Judge Robart himself said in his ruling, “…that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief…”

You see, a temporary restraining order, or TRO, is not the same as a ruling which deems the actions of the government unconstitutional; and therefore null and void. It is more like a time out while both sides take a closer look at the matter. The question is, did Donald Trump act within his authority as President and did Judge Robart act within his authority as District Judge to temporarily halt certain portions of President Trump’s EO?

In justifying his TRO, Judge Robart explained that, “…the court finds that the States have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order. The Executive Order adversely affects the States’
residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.” He goes on to say, “In addition, the States themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the Executive Order has inflicted upon the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the State’s operations, tax bases, and public funds.”

Now I have not seen the evidence provided by Washington State which caused Judge Robart to issue his TRO; so I cannot say whether their claims are valid or not; or whether they are an emotional response to President Trump actually keeping his campaign promises. After all, with all the recent protests going on there is a lot of anti-Trump sentiment going on in this country, as well as a concerted effort to try and derail any actions he takes.

All I know is that with a flick of a pen a District Judge has put the skids on Trump’s Executive Order.

As immigration, or at least naturalization, is one of the specified powers given Congress, it would do us well to understand a brief history of our countries immigration policies.

From the time our country won its independence it was comprised of people who had similar heritages and shared basically the same beliefs, “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.” (John Jay-Federalist 2)

Way back in the days before airlines made travel across the ocean much faster, and safer, immigrants tended to come here not for temporary stays, or to take advantage of the benefits America had to offer; they came here to start new lives as Americans. Therefore our immigration policy tended to be more aimed at who could and could not become Americans.

In one of the first federal acts regarding naturalization, an act was passed which made uniform the time limit one must have resided in America before becoming a citizen to two years. Prior to that the States set their own limits as to how long a person was required to have resided before granting them citizenship within their State. You have to remember, this was all before the Civil War, and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment created the position of American Citizen.

The first actual ban on who could enter the United States came in 1875, and it applied to prostitutes and convicts. In 1882 the Chinese, as well as those convicted of political offenses, lunatics, idiots and those likely to become public charges were banned from entrance into the U.S.

In 1906 a basic understanding of the English language was made a requirement for entry into the U.S. In 1907 Japanese immigration was restricted, as were those with physical or mental defects, and children unaccompanied by parents.

In 1921 the first quotas were established; determining how many people from certain countries would be allowed to enter the US per annum. In 1952 immigration law became codified into what is now Title 8 of the U.S. Code.

Then came 1965 when the national quota system was abolished. In supporting the measure which abolished the quota system, Senator Edward Kennedy stated, “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…” Sure Teddy, tell that to John Jay who said we are a nation “… 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…” You can’t leave your home today without it sounding like you are attending a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.

Could it very well be that, not what Trump did was illegal and unconstitutional, but that the ideas and beliefs regarding who should be allowed to enter this country have shifted dramatically among the American people? Could it be that upholding our customs, our beliefs and our values has become unpopular, while the belief in multiculturalism has taken over? Could it be that the idea of a melting pot where all immigrants come out as Americans, and Americans only has become so politically incorrect that the heat required to melt them into Americans only has been turned off, and it is acceptable for them to demand that we respect their cultures and their beliefs, while it is okay for them to denigrate ours?

And what about these judges who rule on the basis of popular public sentiment? In an article published in the Christian Science Monitor in 1987, Chief Justice Warren Burger stated, “Judges…rule on the basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to pressures of the times.”

This whole idea that a judge can strike down a federal law has as its roots the case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. It was never intended that the courts be allowed to declare a law unconstitutional, or decide what the law means. Their job was to apply the law in the cases which came before them. If a law was unconstitutional, then let the lawyers argue the fact before the juries, and let the juries decide.

This fact was stated by Jefferson in a letter to Judge William Johnson, dated June 1823, “This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on it being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but…The ultimate arbiter is the people…”

Of all the powers granted government by the Constitution, Jefferson feared the power given the Judiciary the most, stating, “At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” (Letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823)

I am not trying to take any side in this issue, just stating the facts as I see them. I will leave the decision of who was right and who was wrong in this up to you. But I’m pretty sure that in forming that decision, the facts I have provided will not bear any relevance to the decision you come to. Either you will stand behind Trump because you are a Trump supporter, or you will stand behind the decision rendered by Judge Robart because you oppose Trump; facts do not matter to people whose beliefs are formed by emotional responses to the issues.

If that is the case I have just wasted two days writing this. But heck, I didn’t have anything else to do; so why not?

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A Message Regarding The Recent Protests (Violence Has A Way of Coming Back to Bite You In the Ass)

As I sit here savoring the first few sips of my morning coffee a question keeps running over and over in my mind: How much longer does America have before things get totally out of control? What I’m seeing going on in America today leaves me wondering how long before the sporadic violence we are seeing becomes commonplace and more extensive.

All through the recent election cycle I saw hints of things to come from those who opposed Donald Trump. There were those who attended his campaign rallies; not to hear what he had to say, but to disrupt them so that others could not hear what he had to say. Trump supporters were insulted, and sometimes attacked; just because they supported a candidate others did not like.

Prior to the election celebrities, (those American Idols whose ideas and beliefs are more important to some than conclusions based upon common sense and critical thought), threatened to leave the country should Trump win the election. I’ve yet to see any of them board a plane to parts yonder. It only goes to prove the validity of the old saying, “Talk is cheap.”

Recently I’ve been reading, and seeing videos, of Trump supporters being attacked out of the blue; just for wearing clothing supporting him. But it was something that happened yesterday which pushed me over the edge to where I sit here now wondering what’s next for America.

Yesterday Milos Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a talk at UC Berkley when violent protests erupted and he had to cancel his speech. Really, UC Berkley; the birthplace of the free speech movement?

Ever since I began paying serious attention to current affairs and politics in America, the left has always called out for tolerance for their beliefs and ideals. Yet tolerance is a two-way street; you have to show it for the ideas and beliefs of others if you expect them to show it to you.

As I recently wrote, it is our perspectives which form the basis for all our beliefs and ideals that set us apart as individuals. If you deny a person the ability to express their opinions, you essentially deny that person their identity and their reason to exist. You do not have to agree with what they say, but you should respect their right to differ from you in their beliefs and ideals.

Isn’t that, after all, the core principle behind our right to freedom of speech and expression? In discussing the principle of free speech, author Evelyn Beatrice Hall once wrote, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

When what a person can and cannot say is governed by minute rules, or by whether it is deemed offensive by a certain segment of society, do we really have free speech in America? When the current political correctness is the sole determining factor in what can and cannot be said, we do not have free speech; we have public induced censorship.

I, myself, have been the victim of politically correct censorship numerous times. I’ve lost track of the times where something I’ve written, or said, has landed me in Human Resources at work; being told to tone down my rhetoric, or because certain words or phrases I’ve used have offended someone.


Now this is only conjecture on my part, but I believe that a big portion of the problem today is that people do not have their own opinions or beliefs on things. I believe that whatever ideas, or causes they believe in, are those which have been spoon fed to them by those in academia or the news media.

I hate to beat a dead horse, as the old saying goes, but the Civil War is a perfect example of this. Anyone who shows any support for the Confederate Cause, or the South during that period in America History, is deemed racist and politically incorrect. Why? Are these conclusions based upon extensive research and thought, or are they the result of the things you have been told by others; others who may, or may not be biased?

Yet this politically correct revising of the true history of the Civil War has led people to take great offense at images, or likenesses of the Confederate Battle Flag. This idea that something people have been taught to despise can be subjected to ridicule and censorship is so repulsive to me that I have taken to wearing a Confederate Battle Flag bandana at work EVERY DAY to fight what I see as a full frontal attack upon the right of people to freely speak and express their beliefs.

I suppose violence was only the next logical progression of the political correct movement; and I should have seen it coming; or at least expected it. When people’s entire belief systems are based upon emotional responses to issues, or catchy campaign catch phrases and slogans, it is inevitable that when faced with overwhelming evidence that shoots their positions down they, first resort to name calling, and when that does not work, they resort to violence to silence those who threaten their beliefs.

I don’t know, have these people been coddled and pampered all their lives, told that their ideas and beliefs hold more weight than the ideas and beliefs of others as long as their heart is in the right place? Have they been taught to believe that they are entitled to things from life; such as in the idiotic participation awards children are being given today to build their self esteem, and that when anyone threatens that self esteem, or their beliefs, violence is an acceptable means of retaliating?

Do they not see the hypocrisy in their actions, or are their minds incapable of the level of thought required to even understand what hypocrisy is? Do they not see that they are attacking the right of others to freely speak their minds and express their opinions; that same right which provides those attacking them the ability to express their opinions?

Just the other day I saw a video of those in the Black Lives Matter movement calling for the assassination of President Trump. I’ve also heard rumblings of this sentiment among others in the American populace. Is that how we solve our problems today; kill those we disagree with? I’ve also seen, and this was awhile back, leaders of the Black Panther Party calling for its members to Kill Whitey. Again, is violence the only recourse these people know?

I wonder, how would they have felt had the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan called for the assassination of Barack Obama? You do not openly threaten to kill a President of the United States; even if you disagree with his policies. Each of us has the right to speak our minds, but that speech has limits, and when the speech calls for violence against others it ceases to be protected by the 1rst Amendment and criminal charges can be leveled against those uttering such sentiments. It is much the same as how we treat slander and libel; you are free to speak your mind, but you are not free to defame the character of another with false allegations and rumors.

When speech, and beliefs cross over into violence a line has been crossed which separates a Constitutionally protected right from a criminal act; and these people violently protesting the free speech of others have crossed that line.

I’m just wondering, if these sporadic outbursts and protests are the logical progression of the politically correct movement, what’s the next progression; full scale rioting and violence?

Those of us who can differentiate between the peaceful expression of ideas and the violent silencing of those we oppose will not sit idly by if our lives and our property are threatened by those who seek to attack us simply because they disagree with our beliefs. We may have remained silent, but do not mistake our silence for our unwillingness to defend ourselves.

If full scale rioting is the next logical step in this progression, those seeking to initiate it better think long and hard before opening that Pandora’s Box; they may get an unexpected surprise when people begin shooting back at them. And believe me, we’ve been honing our skills to a razors edge, and we won’t miss. You can only try a person’s patience so much before you begin encountering resistance; and our patience with those on the extreme left who are at the root of all these protests is wearing thin. And whether they are acting alone, or funded by instigators like George Soros is irrelevant; we are growing tired of their shit!

As the old saying goes, you do not back a wild animal in the corner; its only recourse is to then fight its way out. In the same sentiment, you do not push a people who only want to live their lives in peace too far, or we may begin pushing back. And since those of you instigating this violence are seriously outnumbered, it does not bode well for your continued existence on Planet Earth.

As my parents were fond of saying; “You need to calm down and think about what you’re doing.” You may feel justified in your actions; feel that your hearts are in the right place. Then again you may be doing these things just for the thrill of it. Neither of those things will matter if things get out of hand and you begin threatening the lives and safety of millions of gun owning Americans; your life will be meaningless to us when our safety is being threatened. And unlike most of those protesting, who only know how to attack others for their beliefs, we have the willingness to DEFEND our beliefs and ideals.

So, are you seriously willing to open that can of worms by your continued actions; with the unintended consequence being that you have opened a huge ole can of Whoopass in response? Think about it….PLEASE!

Posted in General | 2 Comments