Listen To Blackstone

If I were to ask you what you considered to be the most important right you possess, how would you answer? If you are like most people you probably haven’t given it much thought. Yet I would be curious to see the results of a massive poll asking that very question. When speaking of rights most people assume I am talking about the Bill of Rights and one of the rights protected by those ten amendments to the Constitution. What most people fail to consider is that one of them, the Ninth Amendment, states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” What that means is that just because a right is not specifically listed among the first ten amendments to the Constitution does not mean the right does not exist.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence he listed three basic rights that we as humans possess; those being Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That third right that Jefferson mentions, the Pursuit of Happiness, is almost redundant. First you have the right to Life, that is the right to live and not have your life taken from you. Secondly you have the right to Liberty. Liberty is defined as being without restraint in your actions. Doesn’t liberty then imply that you are free to pursue happiness?

So what we basically have is the right to Life and the right to Liberty. You can’t enjoy liberty if you are dead can you? So for you to enjoy one, you must have the other. Therefore the right to life would seem to be of greater importance, albeit only slightly higher, than the right to liberty. They are almost equal, but if you are alive and do not have liberty you can, although it may prove difficult, restore your liberty. You can’t reverse that though. Once you are dead you cannot restore your life. So life beats liberty for the top position.

As a human being, and I’m not talking about a citizen of any country, tribe, or other group to which we may belong, but as an individual human being vested with all your rights, what would you consider to be your most important right? I don’t know about you, but I would think that the right of self-preservation or self-defense would rank up there at the top.

You have to remember that all of your rights existed before government ever came into the picture. If you were the only human being on the planet who would there be to tell you what you could do and what you couldn’t do? If you were the only human being and there was no document listing your rights, would that mean you had none? No, you would retain all your rights, with the law of nature being the only law by which you lived. Under this law of nature it would basically be survival of the fittest.

Under the law of nature your primary concern would be self-preservation. That means your primary concerns would be the seeking of shelter and the providing of food for your sustenance. Everything that you might acquire, be it some sort of dwelling to live in, tools you made to make your life easier, and food you planted or hunted for, is yours, that is it is your property. This is the origin of property, that which man has taken, or created out of the things that the world provides for our sustenance.

Times have changed for many of us, we now live in civilized societies where we have ‘jobs’ we go to so that we may earn a paycheck and purchase the things we need, the concept is still the same. The money we earn is the fruit of our labor, and the things we exchange the money for are therefore our property as well.

In a state of nature man was free to defend his life and his property by whatever means he felt the situation required. There were no laws saying man could not use force to defend what he had acquired, it was a fundamental part of his nature as a human being which gave him the right to defend what was his against any threat posed, be it by animals scavenging for food, or other men.

When men formed into civil societies, that is groups of men living together, they did so for one purpose, to better be able to defend themselves from common threats, or as John Locke wrote, “… for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.”

Eventually governments came into existence. Probably the first forms of government were simple councils of tribe members who had the ultimate authority to settle disputes and manage the affairs of the tribe. Over the course of history government has taken many shapes and forms, but there are but two ways government may be instituted; it can either be established by a conscious act of the people, or someone, or some group, may take power for themselves. Those two modes of government are behind every republic, every dictatorship or monarchy that has ever existed, and those which have yet to exist. Power is either granted, or it is taken.

Yet no matter what form government may take, man’s basic rights remain eternal. Look at our own country; the original 13 colonies were established under a rule of a monarch whose word was law and it was final. Yet they fought back, believing in the concept that as free men they had rights which no ruler could proscribe. They obtained their independence, their liberty, and for the first time in history a nation existed that could establish which form of government it might take, and which powers it might hold.

Our nation’s Founders understood not only government, but they understood men. They realized that man is a flawed creature, full of weaknesses and susceptible to corruption and vice. This is what James Madison meant when he wrote the following in Federalist 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

If you think for a moment that a people who had just fought a long bloody war to gain their independence from a tyrant were going to create a system of government which was just as tyrannical as the one they just rid themselves of, then I may as well stop writing right now as you are beyond hope.

What our Founders did was to establish a system of government which was bestowed with a very limited amount of power, just enough to manage the affairs of the nation and provide for its common defense. Checks and balances were created which gave no one branch too much power and allowed the others to halt any possible slide into tyranny it may take. And above all, with the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, the rights of the people were to be secured against any and all violations.

In 1943 the Supreme Court affirmed that our rights remain intact. In the case of West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette Justice Jackson ruled, “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Our rights, including our individual right to self-preservation/self-defense, cannot be taken from us or legislated away by those we delegate the power to govern in our stead. Our rights are ours and as long as each of us lives and breathes they will remain so. It is inconceivable that a group of men who had just fought a bloody war to gain their independence would turn around and create a system of government, delegating to that government the power to limit their rights.

Our government was established to make laws beneficial to the general welfare of the nation and to safeguard our liberty. But what is law. According to Bastiat, “Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice.”

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

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

But we as individuals have the right to stand up and defend all our other rights when they come under attack. Marcus Cicero wrote “There exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”

The right of self-defense is an all encompassing right. It applies not only to those who would threaten our lives, take our property, or bring violence to those we love, it also applies to defending our rights and our liberty against those who would take those from us as well.

As Locke writes in his Second Treatise, “…whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.”

The only way a government may enforce its will upon the people is through violence and coercion. Let’s face it, if you include the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Executive branches there are only 543 people in our government. Under normal conditions, if the government were just and fair, the people would willingly obey the laws it enacted. But if the government were to become oppressive how long could 543 people hold off an angry nation of over 300 million people?

That is of course unless the government had a standing army to enforce its will. Now by a standing army I mean not only an active armed forces at the constant beck and call of government but I also include any armed agency whose job it is to enforce governmental edicts upon the masses. By that definition I also include in the category of standing armies the ATF, the DEA and all the other alphabet soup agencies that can, by force and violence, enforce the will of the government upon our lives.

Yet in 1787 Noah Webster would write, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

What’s my purpose in telling you all this? It all boils down to the fact that we are being disarmed, a bit at a time. Not only are there laws which tell us what type, size, and magazine capacity of the guns we may own but we also have laws saying when, how and under what circumstances we may use them for self-defense. That includes our ability to defend our lives, our property, AND our liberty.

It all boils down to a statement made by Sir William Blackstone, the famous English jurist who declared, “Free men have arms; slaves do not.”

St George Tucker, a Virginia Judge in the 1800′s writes, “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.

Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

As a nation we have been indoctrinated into picking up a phone and dialing 911 when we need protection. Yet the court has ruled that the police are under no specific obligation to provide protection for the people. In Warren v District of Columbia the court ruled it so and that has yet to be overruled.

Yet, in most cases, when the people take it upon themselves to defend their lives or their property with deadly force they become the criminals under our legal system and the whole weight of the injustice system comes to bear upon them.

Yet think back to what Bastiat said about the law, “Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice.” And then think about what Jefferson said in the 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.”

The Law, as Bastiat wrote, has been perverted. It is now a crime to exercise your right of self-defense. It is a crime to defend yourself, your property, and your liberty. Those of us who speak of armed defense of all these things are looked upon with fear by those who have been conditioned to believe that the government is all powerful and can dictate how and when we may defend ourselves and our rights.

In Amos v Mosley the Court ruled, “If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right.” Just because those we have delegated authority to pass laws which say we cannot defend ourselves and our property does not make it so.

Unless you are incapable of thinking and are devoid of reasoning, you cannot but wonder what would be the reason why those in authority would seek the power to disarm, or limit the people’s ability to use arms, for the defense of their lives, their property and their liberty.

I say never give up your guns or your right to self-defense. As King Leonidas told the Persian Army when they told him to surrender his weapons, Molon Labe which means “Come and take them.”

And always remember what Blackstone said, “Free men have arms; slaves do not.”

Posted in General | 1 Comment

We Have Forgotten Who We Are (Part 2)

The values of the Framers of the Constitution must be applied in any case construing the Constitution. Inferences from the text and history of the Constitution should be given great weight in discerning the original understanding and in determining the intentions of those who ratified the constitution. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969)

Why a Part 2 you ask? Well it’s simple, I was asked to write a Part 2 because I was told I did not do enough to explain who we were in Part 1.

I guess it all boils down to what our values are today, as compared to say a hundred, or two hundred years ago. Our values form our belief system, or vice versa, and it is the mixture of the two which guide us in our decisions and throughout our lives for that matter. Therefore when we vote for candidates to represent us in office we typically choose the candidate who most closely resembles, or reflects, the values we hold as individuals. Not that this is a bad thing; it all depends upon how virtuous and ethical our own values are. If ours are corrupt and immoral then we will choose candidates who are corrupt and immoral. It is that simple.

Samuel Adams is probably one of my favorite Founding Fathers. Sure I admire Jefferson more for his knowledge and thoughts on rights and liberty, but Adams is more like me, a trouble maker and a rabble rouser. Even before the Declaration of Independence was written Adams was stirring the shit, so to speak. In an essay published in the Public Advertiser in 1749 Adams penned the following, “[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”

Then thirty years later Adams would write the following in a letter to Elbridge Gerry, “If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation.”

There, in a nutshell, is all that is wrong in America today. One the one side we have a people who have no understanding, and no desire to learn, the principles upon which this great nation was founded. Therefore their beliefs are formed by what they are told by charlatans and crooks who seek to rule over them. As Patrick Henry once said, “Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom.”

Then on the other hand due to our inattention to the affairs of our government and our corrupted state of morals we choose the very category of men that Adams warned us about. These men are not public servants, they are not statesmen, they are seekers of power, glory, and personal wealth. Daniel Webster once said, “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

That is not how our system was designed. Under our system the people were sovereign, that is, the supreme power in this country, not the government. Government was to be our servant, not our master. This has been reaffirmed numerous times in court rulings but the simplest, and shortest quote to prove so comes from a 1935 ruling in the case of Perry v United States. In the court’s ruling they clearly stated, “In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution…”

If our government gets out of hand, abuses its powers, it is because we allow it to. Sometimes we even ask that it do things that it isn’t supposed to do because we want it to do so to take care of us, make us safer and more secure, and often to simply protect us from ourselves. In 1950 Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson ruled, “It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.” (American Communications Association v. Douds)

It basically boils down to this; if we are corrupted in values, our government will be corrupt as well. If we don’t care about what the Constitution or Bill of Rights says, neither will our government. Since we elect the people to represent us, and since we are supposed to be a check upon them to ensure they do not overstep their power and authority, if they do so, WE ARE TO BLAME!

Our nation was once great. It still is a far sight better than many of the nations of the world in regards to individual liberty, economic status, and a whole slew of other things…but it was also a lot better than it is now. So what were the values, the beliefs, and the ethics that made us great, and how have they changed causing us to be where we are today?

Well for one thing, we were far more self-reliant than we are today. Our Founders would be sorely disappointed with us today if they could see how reliant we are upon government to do all the things we ask it to do for us. How many programs exist which do such a wide range of things, all the way from providing for our retirement; our medical needs, caring for the poor or handicapped; and providing subsidies for businesses and individuals? None of this would have pleased the Founders as they were firmly against government taking money from the Treasury and spending it on acts of benevolence on the citizenry. Presidents throughout the ages have vetoed bills which did just that because they could find no justification for them in the Constitution.

James Madison did it twice, Grover Cleveland did it, Calvin Coolidge did it, and James Garfield even went so far as to say, “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.”

Yet today we not only allow it, we expect it. We expect government to provide us with Medicare, Social Security, and a whole slew of other ‘entitlements’ all of which our Founders would have found repulsive. It was not the American way to subsist on the backs of and off money taken from those who had.

Ben Franklin is known for his many short concise comments often found in his Almanac. Two of Franklin’s comments bear your consideration. First Franklin once wrote, “The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” And secondly, “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”

Thomas Jefferson was an avid reader. Of the many books he had amongst his possessions was Destutt de Tracy’s Treatise on Political Economy. One of the passages he paid particular heed to was “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association,―the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.”

Our nation existed for nearly a century and a half before government began taking it upon itself to provide all these so-called entitlements for the people. Yet we thrived. Sure there was poverty but it was the general belief that it was not the purpose of government to ease the suffering of those in need. That may sound cruel and inhuman, as many would claim today, but that’s the way it was. Charity was an individual choice, not something we were forced to participate in by government mandate. This is one of the values/beliefs that have changed over time.

Another one is our right to self-defense. Our founders believed fervently in our right to defend ourselves, our property, and our liberty. If any of these came under attack it was considered and individual right to defend them, up to and including using deadly force…i.e. killing the offender.

Hell, back at the time our nation was founded duels often took place when two men had a disagreement, or when one felt his honor had been violated by another. The most famous of these duels took place between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Hamilton had defamed Burr’s character and Burr sought a duel to settle it once and for all. Too bad this duel hadn’t taken place years earlier and Hamilton had been killed before he became Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington. But the point is that even though dueling was at the time being outlawed, it was still considered an individual right to defend one’s life, property, and rights…with force and violence if necessary.

Yet today legislators across the land pass laws saying when, where, and under what circumstances we may carry, and use firearms for our protection. Instead of, and this goes back to self-reliance, seeking to defend ourselves we have come to rely upon policemen to do that for us. And in so doing we have surrendered an elemental right, the right of self-defense and self-preservation. Again, our Founders would be repulsed.

And finally, and this will offend more people than everything else I’ve said up to this point, we have abandoned God. All the time I see these bumper stickers which say God Bless America. Why should He? Honestly, why should He when we’ve abandoned Him?

Look at us, how morally corrupt we are in so many things. Let me ask you something. How can anyone who is Christian be a Democrat and support a candidate which supports abortion? I’m not saying government should even get involved in the issue of abortion, that isn’t among the powers delegated it. What I’m asking is how could anyone who calls themselves a Christian support someone who openly campaigns saying that they support abortion?

Now don’t all you Republicans get all exited that I’m slamming Democrats, your not guiltless either. How can any Christian support a Republican which supports legislation which violates any of our rights? Our Declaration of Independence states that our rights are a gift from our Creator. If they are, then how can you claim to be Christian and support anyone who would limit those rights?

I know, some are saying why did Neal have to bring religion into this, America isn’t a Christian nation. I beg to differ.

Our Founders were all, in their own ways, devout men. George Washington once warned, “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”

Years later President Warren G. Harding would say, “It is my conviction that the fundamental trouble with the people of the United States is that they have gotten too far away from Almighty God.”

I can hear it now, what about the separation of church and state? Do you even know what that means? It does not mean that religion is not allowed in public places or in schools, it simply means that government cannot require you to attend, or support any specific denomination, but that you are free to worship as you please.

In his Memorial and Remonstrance, James Madison wrote, ” Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him.”

You say we are not a Christian nation? In 1892 the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. In the case of Church of the Holy Trinity vs U.S. the court ruled, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…this is a Christian nation.”

You say our religious beliefs, our old fashioned American values offend you. Tough! As recently as 1989 the Supreme Court upheld our right to say as we please. In the case of Texas vs Johnson the court ruled, “If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

That, my friends, is what freedom of speech is all about. However, it works both ways. As Christians we cannot demand that government censor lyrics or movies that we find offensive any more than atheists can demand that we not be allowed to pray, (of our own volition), in school.

These are just a few of the values and beliefs I was speaking of. We have forsaken them, and forgotten who and what we are as a people. I could go on and discuss immigration, our never ending wars to police the world. But these are a few of them to give you an idea of how far we have strayed from the America that was established so many years ago by wise men.

There is one more quote I would like to leave you. This one comes from Daniel Webster, who said, “There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men and become the instruments of their own undoing.”

Our Constitution has not changed, aside from the few amendments which have been added to it over the years. Our desire to understand it has. Our laziness and desire for entertainment and self gratification have led us to where we are today. Our lack of virtue and an adherence to good moral principles have led us to where we are today.

So if you want to blame someone for what is wrong in America today, I suggest you find the closest mirror.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

We Have Forgotten Who We Are

Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible. Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane (1821)

Let’s be honest, America has lost its way, it has forgotten who and what it is. People today blame one political party or the other for the problems this country currently faces, while others blame the gridlock between the two parties for our problems. If you want the truth, neither of those two reasons are the real problem for all the problems in America today.

Think about it, we have what’s known as a representative form of government. It is not a democracy where the majority gets what they want all the time. It is not a dictatorship or an oligarchy were one man, or a small group of men, decide what is best for the country and their will is supreme. Under our system we choose candidates to represent the people in the management of the government. At the time it was established the states also had a say in the federal government by way of their choosing the members of the Senate. But that balance of power was shifted when they tinkered with the system by ratifying the 17th Amendment, giving the power of electing Senators to the people.

So now the system truly is representative of the people who inhabit this land due to the fact that we choose the president; we choose members to the House of Representatives; and we choose the Senators to represent our states.

The key word in all this is represent. One of the definitions for the word represent is to express or explain what is happening or what people think. So if our government is disjointed and dysfunctional it is because we as a people are disjointed and dysfunctional. In that, our government truly is a mirror held up to the people it represents.

Our nation’s name, lest you forgot, is the United States of America, the key word being United. United does not simply mean that we share a common border with our neighboring states and that we have a common government to manage the affairs of this union of states. No, united means far more than that.

In Federalist Number 2, future Supreme Court Justice John Jay would write, “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.”

This is what they meant when they called us these United States of America. We are anything but that now. Just look at all the issues that divide us; not only politically, but socially, and due to our heritages as well. We are a nation divided and fragmented, and if you put aside the fact that our government has been bought and paid for by powerful men behind the scenes who dictate what it will and will not do, it is a reflection of how divided we really are.

You see, John Jay also said in Federalist 2, “This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.”

But that is what we are if you really think about it, a bunch of people living under the same roof arguing over what we think is best for the country, without ever having taken the time to study what our Founders plan for government says is the nature and purpose of our government. Is it then, any wonder, that our system is so screwed up?

At one point in our nation’s history a group of states decided that the government no longer served the purpose for which it was established. They decided to do what the Declaration of Independence says was their right, “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.”

Slavery was not the issue during the Civil War, or as I prefer to call it, the War of Northern Aggression. It was the right of the states to dissolve the compact which bound them to the union when they felt the union was no longer serving the purpose for which it was established.

Abraham Lincoln saw it differently. He raised troops to force the Confederacy to abandon their secessionist movement. The country, divided now between the North and South, went to war. Over half a million men died and Abraham Lincoln got his wish that this union should be perpetual, that the states had no right to dissolve the compact which bound them together.

In that respect we are forever united, unless once again we face another Civil War fought by those standing up for their rights, and the federal government which would seek, by force, to impose its will upon us. But we are far from united on principle and beliefs as to what our government is, and is not, supposed to do.

Let’s be honest with ourselves, most people in this country could care less about what their government is doing. Unless their taxes were to go up drastically, or some benefit that they are receiving is suddenly cut off, most people could care less what happens in Washington D.C., or their state capitals for that matter. I know people who can name the entire offensive and defensive lines of their favorite football team, but they can’t name who is Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, Secretary of State, or even the Vice President. What does that tell you about where people’s priorities are? Do you honestly think that people such as these are going to research legislation that Congress is proposing? Do you honestly believe that these people will compare whether any of the programs and agencies government establishes are within the specifically enumerated powers granted government by the Constitution? Me neither.

So we get what Jefferson feared, a corruption of principles and our government is merely a reflection of that. I could go on and on about which principles have been corrupted; how we are no longer self-reliant, how our views on the right of self-defense have changed, but it wouldn’t do any good, people don’t care.

If people cared they wouldn’t be flying. These TSA searches at the airports are clear cut violations of the 4th Amendment, which states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” For a search, such as those being performed at airports across the country, to take place there must be a reason why they are performed. The agency must present evidence to a judge stating that there is reason to believe that the person being searched is guilty of a crime. The judge must issue a warrant stating where the search will take place and what they are looking for. The person being searched must be presented with the warrant.

When people go through these searches they are surrendering their 4th Amendment right. If every single person boarding a flight asked to see the warrant which authorized these searches what could they do? If every person refused to fly until these searches were halted, what would they do?

It does not matter that by these searches they may prevent one person from smuggling a bomb onto a plane. The loss of life would be horrible, but you simply cannot suspend people’s rights due to the belief that by doing so you are making the world a safer place.

Ben Franklin once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Former Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren also said, “It would indeed by ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of the liberties…which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”

These violations of our rights by those who claim to be doing so to fight terror are just the latest in a long string of violations of our rights and liberty. They are tolerated because we tolerate them. Remember, our government is supposed to be representative, so if it does something we don’t like we vote them out of office or demand that they halt their usurpations of power and infringements upon our rights.

None of these happen because we have forgotten what this country once stood for. We have forsaken the principles of the men who established it and we have become corrupt, disjointed, and dysfunctional. Our government is merely a reflection of the people. I hope you like what you see.

If you are serious about changing the course our country is currently taking, I suggest you take a long hard look at your views and beliefs. That may require you to question the things you have believed in for years, if not your entire life. But if you want to see America return to its former glory then it must be done. Or else nothing is going to change. We will continue to vote for candidates based upon our own flawed belief systems.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Conspiracy Theories

Before I begin let me state clearly that there are certain conspiracy theories that believe to be true. I believe that there is more to how the Twin Towers came down on 9/11 than we are being told. I believe that the bankers have bought our government and through the CFR pick and choose the candidates we are allowed to vote for. I believe that Barack Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements as a Natural Born Citizen to be president of the United States. I believe that they are spraying chemtrails in the sky, poisoning our atmosphere and possibly control weather patterns.

I also believe in false flag incidents where things happen which are staged by some to make it look like the events were carried out by someone else, to elicit a desired emotional response from those who witness these events. 9/11 is a perfect example. I think that however deeply our government was involved in 9/11, be it from just simply knowing that it was going to happen and allowing it to so that they could implement all these new anti-terror laws, to the planning and carrying out of the events, that it was a false flag.

In that I mean that events that happened that day were not what they seemed. Sure the buildings came down and roughly 3,000 people lost their lives. But the people blamed for it were not the ones who were responsible. It is a perfect example of the Hegelian Dialect. In the Hegelian Dialect if you want a desired outcome to something you create a crisis. Then when people call for something to be done to solve the crisis you present your solution to the problem which was what you wanted to see implemented all along. Then the people accept your solution willingly.

I believe the Federal Reserve Act was passed due to a false flag. The financial crisis which caused people to demand something be done to stabilize our economic system was staged by the very people who wanted control of our nation’s financial system.

So yes, I believe in conspiracy theories. But there is a problem with conspiracy theories. If you begin listening to them everything newsworthy suddenly becomes some sort of a conspiracy. If you start listening to people everything becomes a conspiracy and you have a hard time believing that anything happens without it being planned, staged, and orchestrated to fool and mislead you.

Sorry to disappoint, but shit happens sometimes and it is not part of some full blown conspiracy. Now I’m not saying that if something which incites the public outrage happens that there aren’t those who won’t take advantage of the situation to their benefit. They most certainly will. What was it Rahm Emmanuel said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Take for instance these riots in Ferguson Missouri. A cop shoots a black kid and gets off. Now regardless of guilt or innocence on the officers part, the truth is that racial tensions in this country are high and if a white cop kills a black kid, even if justified, there will be protests, and often riots, if the cop is not punished. That is a fact.

To say that these riots are part of some massive conspiracy is wrong. They may have been fueled by the medias portrayal of the ‘supposedly’ innocent young boy this white cop ‘supposedly’ gunned down in cold blood. They may have been fueled by leaders of the black community like Al Sharpton who demands justice when a black youth is killed, (except for all the black on black deaths which don’t seem to bother Mr. Sharpton).

Events like these riots may be infiltrated and used by those who wish to see racial tension and an excuse for a stronger police force to control the people, but the initial reason for which they occur is not always a conspiracy.


There is an ability which I have found to be lacking in many people, that being the skill of critical thinking. Now I know some people may be upset by this, but you cannot get all your information from one source.

If you watch only FOX News then you are getting their perspective on events, and that bias is set by those who own and control FOX News. The same goes for CNN, NBC and all the other news outlets. And this is also true in regards to whatever alternate news source you go to for your news, including INFOWARS.

I now far too many people who get all their information from one source. It matters not whether that source is Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O Reilly, and yes, even Alex Jones. If you rely only upon one person, one source, for your information then you are not thinking for yourself. What you are doing is being spoon fed information by a person, or group of people, who share a like mind and are giving you only one side of a story.

In 1789 one of the lesser known Founders, Fischer Ames, wrote in a letter to Richard Minot, “I am commonly opposed to those who modestly assume the rank of champions of liberty, and make a very patriotic noise about the people. It is the stale artifice which has duped the world a thousand times, and yet, though detected, it is still successful.” It is just as easy for people to be fooled by those who proclaim themselves to be champions of the truth, or of liberty, as it is to be fooled by those who would see you enslaved. That is why I have never asked anyone to take anything I say for granted. I have always hoped that you would do your own research and come to your own conclusions. But you must be capable, and willing to perform critical thinking to do so.

Critical thinking demands that you take in information from all sources and then evaluate, compare, and then come to your own conclusions. Critical thinking is time consuming and therefore something many people refuse to do. But to be truly informed you must do it. Otherwise you are merely repeating the biases given you by the source you happen to be listening to.

It is fine if you believe in conspiracy theories, but you would be wise to choose carefully what you consider to be a conspiracy and what is just something that happens for no real reason. There are a lot of things happening in this country which are staged events which are used to cause a desired shift in public opinion regarding everything from gun control to the size and scope of government. But to believe that everything that happens is part of some large scale conspiracy is as foolish as ignoring the fact that some conspiracy theories are real.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Are You A Law Abiding Citizen? (Est autem vis legem simulans)

*Authors Note: I knew from the onset that this was going to be lengthy and quite detailed. I realized that due to this fact that it would preclude it being read by many people. I also no longer care. I write for those who are willing to take the time to educate themselves, not for those who are too lazy to turn off their TV’s for an hour or two to read something that may teach them something they didn’t know. I also write solely for the purpose of staying at a certain level of proficiency at the actual act of writing. Writing is a skill, that unless practiced, is lost. So I write as much for myself as I do for you. That being said, if you wish to learn something, then please continue reading.*

I fully realize that probably around 90% of the people in this country could care less about the law or legal terms and definitions. It seems that people simply do not care to learn what the law says, the reasons laws are written for, or whether or not certain laws are being violated. It isn’t until the criminal acts of another person directly affect them that they care. Then what do they do? They call for assistance from a law enforcement officer.

We Americans put faith in our lawmakers, those who enforce the law, and those who uphold justice believing that they are doing right by us by their actions. But then again there is the legal maxim contained in the title of this article, “Est autem vis legem simulans.” A legal maxim is an established principle or proposition; a principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant with reason.

This particular legal maxim translates as “Violence may also put on the mask of law.” What does that mean? What it means is that we are human beings and not all of us are just, honest, and virtuous. If one lacking in those qualities is put into a position where they are given the authority to create, or enforce law, then the law may end up being adverse to the purpose for which laws are created, i.e. the protection of our rights.

I know most people for whom this is being written won’t take the time to read something, but nonetheless I would recommend Frederic Bastiat’s book The Law. But for those of you who won’t read it, here is probably the most important quote in the book, “What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

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

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

People today confuse our system that produces and enforces the laws we live under. They call it the legal system, but that is not entirely correct. It may very well be a legal system, but there is a difference between a legal system and a system of justice. A legal system is simply a system which creates and enforces whatever laws are enacted. In a legal system there is no attention paid to rights or freedoms, it is simply enforcing the law. Nazi Germany had a legal system, as did the former Soviet Union. But in both those instance the rights our country was founded upon did not exist.

However, according to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, one of the definitions of justice states, “the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity”, and, for those who aren’t familiar with the word equity, it is the quality of being fair and impartial.

To understand law you must ask yourselves two questions. First you must ask where does law come from. Secondly you must ask by what authority does one group of people have the power to create laws which are binding upon all society.

Bastiat touched upon both questions when he said, “… it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly.” But if you really want to know, and understand the answer to those two questions than you must read John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Governments. Of all the things that I have read that book gave me a clearer understanding of not so much the how, but the purpose for which our government was established. And in understanding that I understand the purpose for which laws were to be created.

I could go into great detail regarding the specific details regarding our government, but I have done so repeatedly in previous articles and do not wish to cover old ground. I will say that it was created for two specific reasons. The first was to manage the very basic administration of the Union, and I mean the very basic. If you were to read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution you will see the only powers our government has. They are specific, they are enumerated, [listed], and they are very general in scope. It was never intended that the government get down into the details of protecting and providing for the people. The government was to be an administrative body to handle the general needs of the country as a whole. The second reason, which is relevant to this article, was to protect and secure the rights of the inhabitants of this nation.

You must understand that at some point in the existence of human beings on this planet there was no government. Therefore government, in whatever shape it takes, is a creation of man. You must also understand that some sort of rules must have existed for man to live by.

Now I’m not talking about Neanderthal man, I’m talking about man as a being who has at least developed some form or reasoning and communication. As a reasoning being man is either guided by a set of ethics by which he lives by, or he isn’t.

If man has some sort of moral ethics by which he lives by then he will respect others and not rely upon them for anything for his own sustenance. If he isn’t, on the other hand, then he will plunder, murder, and live by survival of the fittest.

This is known as the state of nature and Locke explains it as being, ” 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.”

In a state of nature man is free to do as he pleases. In a state of nature there are no laws which govern man’s actions. In a state of nature the only thing stopping one man from taking from another, or bringing harm to him, is the ability of the other man to defend what is rightfully theirs.

Therefore, in the beginning when the first laws were created, they were created to establish some sort of rules and guidelines by which societies, or groups of men, could live together peacefully. As Bastiat said, “What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.”

From the very beginning, man has had the ‘individual right’, that is the right for each person to defend themselves against attacks upon their lives, their property, and their freedom to enjoy both. In Locke’s Second Treatise he states it as follows, “And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.”

But what happens when men form societies? Now by societies I do not mean governments. By societies I simply mean groups of men who gathered together to protect and provide for themselves as a unit instead of as individuals. Or, to put it in words that many are familiar with, there is strength in numbers.

Before I go any further I must touch upon the idea of property. In 1792 James Madison wrote the following regarding ‘property’, ” This term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage. In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property. In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”

I will return to Madison’s writing later, but for now you have a basic understanding of what is meant by the word property. Locke, however, went further, by saying the following regarding property, “It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.”

Now that we have that covered let’s continue. So, when men created civil societies it was for the common defense of their lives and their property, and for the advantage that numbers gave them. By that I mean that it might take a single man months, even years, to build a dwelling to live in. But with numbers that time is reduced dramatically. Therefore civil societies offered man not only the strength of numbers, but the combined labor and assistance to create communities wherein he could live.

Government, on the other hand, is an entirely different creature. Governments are groups of men, or single individuals, who have either been given power to create laws which will bind all men, or who have risen to power through coercion and violence who wield absolute power over those they rule over. If you look at a dictatorship, or even a monarchy, the ruler has absolute power. Also under these types of government there is also some means of ‘enforcing’ the absolute will of the ruler.

Now I won’t waste too much time on the varying forms in which government may exist, but I will take a moment to discuss this ‘enforcing’ element by which rulers may impose their will. When our Founders lived in the colonies they were considered subjects whose loyalty was to the King of England. Being such they felt that they were entitled to the same rights and freedoms which were enjoyed by citizens living in Britain. Among these were the right to representation in Parliament so as to participate in the creation of laws which ensured their rights in the colonies were protected.

It could be said that by the King sending massive numbers of troops to the colonies to enforce his will and keep the peace that the seeds of revolution and independence were planted. When our Founders finally obtained their independence the idea of a ‘standing army’ was repulsive to them. They felt that a standing army could be used by a tyrant to enforce unjust laws upon the people. As James Madison said, “A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.”

Our founders did not want to see a tyrant or an oligarchy, [a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution] having control over a standing army it might use to enforce their will upon the people.

Not since the dawn of man, and the existence of the first simple forms of government, has a people been given the opportunity to establish the system of government which would rule over them. However, our Founders had centuries of history to learn from. They all could look back to history and see what forms of government provided the best means of protecting the rights of the people. They also had the writings of men like Sir Thomas Aquinas, Montesquieu, and most importantly, John Locke to draw from. It was from these men that the Founders concepts and beliefs regarding our rights came from, and it was upon their beliefs that they created our system of government.

Our Founders, almost to a one, all believed that our rights were inherent, that they were inviolable, and unalienable. Those words mean little to people today, but in the period between 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was written to 1789 when the Constitution was ratified, they meant everything.

Inherent means that they are part of our human nature, that we are born with them as equally as we are born with arms, legs, a face and all the other parts of our body. Inviolable means that they are sacred and unbreakable. And unalienable is the most important of all. Unalienable, depending upon where you look, means something which cannot be sold, transferred or relinquished…even if you are willing to do so. That means that although you may choose not to exercise an unalienable right it never ceases to exist should you later choose to exercise it.

Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law has the following to say about unalienable, “Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable. ”

And what is liberty? Returning to Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, liberty is defined as, “Freedom from restraint. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.”

However, Bouvier goes on to say, “Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind, of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and that they do not in any way abuse it to the prejudice of other men.”

That, right there, is the sole power our government has over our lives. It is not ensure that we are provided with security and sustenance, but to secure to each person the ability to exercise their rights and to provide a means to settle disputes when one person infringes upon the rights of another.

Government, at least those created under written constitutions, are not the sole deciders of what powers they have. To understand what a constitution is you must understand the root word from which it comes. The word constitution is derived from the word constitute. To constitute means to empower, to authorize. That is why the Preamble to our Constitution declares that “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The Preamble is not a grant of power, it is a declaration of intent. It lays out the reasons why our Founders wrote the Constitution and the purpose for which it was to exist. At the time our Constitution was written our nation was suffering because the Articles of Confederation did not, among other things, provide the existing government sufficient authority to collect revenue and provide for the common defense. So they wrote a Constitution creating a bigger, stronger government, making the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land once it was accepted by a majority of the states. That is why they say “…to create a more perfect union.” They realized our union was flawed and weak and sought to strengthen it.

However, the very next thing the Preamble declares is “…establish justice…”, and we already know what justice is. But then the very last purpose the Preamble states this Constitution was being written for was to “… secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…”

The Constitution was written to create a government that handled the affairs of the union but left to each of us our individual rights and freedoms. However there were still those who felt that this Constitution did not do enough to secure those rights, and they refused to agree to it unless it was amended somehow to further protect our rights.

This is why our Bill of Rights came into existence, because those who supported the Constitution realized that without further safeguards for our rights then the Constitution stood a good chance of never being ratified by the required number of states. But once it was ratified, and the Bill of Rights added, it became the supreme law of the land, and each and every person who works in any government position swears an oath to support and defend it.

It would behoove you to read, and understand, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Yes, the Bill of Rights also has a preamble, declaring why it was written. It 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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

Let’s take a moment to examine what this says. It begins by saying, “…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers…” What it are they talking about? Well they are talking about the Constitution itself. It, therefore, could have been written as follows, “…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the powers granted by this Constitution…”

It goes on to say, “… that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .” These clauses, these first ten amendments to the Constitution restrict our government from enacting laws regarding the rights spoken of in each amendment. They simply cannot limit, restrict, or prohibit us from exercising them. It is that simple. And since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, then these rights are protected from infringement by, not only, the federal government, but the state and local governments as well.

So where does this leave us? It leaves us understanding that our rights are ours and that government was established in this country to protect them. And how does a government protect our rights? It does so by enacting law. Thus, we return almost full circle to what I spoke of at the beginning of this lengthy missive. What do we have in this country at the current time? Do we have a system of justice, or do we have a legal system?

It is my belief that we no longer have a system of justice in this country. Why do I say that? I’ll try to explain from what I’ve learned regarding law.

There are many types of law. If you have ever been called for jury duty you may have been witness to either a civil or a criminal case. What is the difference? Well it depends upon what type law is being argued in the courtroom. Yes, there are many types of law, and these are but a few of them.

According to Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, “In its most general and comprehensive sense, law signifies a rule of action…” He goes on to say, “In its more confined sense, law denotes the rule, not of actions in general, but of human action or conduct.”

But law is subdivided into even more categories. There is positive law wherein law is not always written down, but is commonly accepted, more akin to a custom than law. Positive law requires that all people understand and that most choose willingly to obey it.

Then there is Common Law, which is similar to Positive Law. Common Law derives its force and authority from the universal consent of the people. It has never been sanctioned by an action of a legislative body, but has the common consent of all.

Then there is Natural Law, from which our Founders drew from in establishing our Constitution, and declaring our rights. Natural Law, according to Bouvier is, “The law of nature is that which God, the sovereign of the universe, has prescribed to all men, not by any formal promulgation, but by the internal dictate of reason alone. It is discovered by a just consideration of the agreeableness or disagreeableness of human actions to the nature of man; and it comprehends all the duties which we owe either to the Supreme Being, to ourselves, or to our neighbors; as reverence to God, self-defence, temperance, honor to our parents, benevolence to all, a strict adherence to our engagements, gratitude, and the like.”

There are so many categories of law that one can quickly become overwhelmed. There is civil law, corporate law, maritime law, international law, ad nauseum. But it is imperative that you understand that our Founders believed in creating a system of government based upon natural law in which our rights were to be protected at all costs.

Therefore, if we the people, not ourselves, but our forefathers, established a system of government, constituted, [authorized], it to act on behalf of the people, for certain defined purposes, both limiting its power and authority, and safeguarding our rights, and this government no longer acts for the reason for which it was instituted, what would you call it?

I call it tyranny. Tyranny, according to Bouvier, is defined as, “The violation of those laws which regulate the division and the exercises of the sovereign power of the state. It is a violation of its constitution.”

When our government seeks to usurp powers, or limit us from exercising our rights under natural law, then it has become tyrannical. Usurpation is defined as, “The tyrannical assumption of the government by force contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country.” There we have that word tyranny again.

So, if a government enacts a law which is in violation of the Constitution it is thereby designated as an unconstitutional law, and no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. NO ONE!

This is affirmed by legal doctrine found in the 16th American Jurisprudence, an Encyclopedia of legal terms and concepts. In Section 177 of this Encyclopedia of law we find, ” The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

So once again here comes the question, do we have a legal system or a system of justice? In a legal system the law is whatever those who write the law says it is, regardless of the rights it was originally designed to protect.

Many courts, or judges in particular, will not even allow you to mention the Constitution or Bill of Rights in your defense. Law enforcement agencies enforce law without ever stopping to question if the law is constitutional or not. On top of all that we have untold number of government agencies, all having the power to enact regulations and the power to enforce them with force and violence against our persons should we refuse.

Ask the Weavers of Ruby Ridge if we have a justice system in this country. Ask any survivor from Waco. Ask the Bundy’s in Arizona. All these people, and untold others, have faced and dealt with, many times costing them their homes and their lives, the might of our government because they dared stand up to what they considered unconstitutional acts…for merely standing up for their rights.

Remember that standing army I spoke of earlier? What would you call the fully militarized units of the ATF, the DEA, and the many other government agencies who treat you like a subject and not a free man? Then there are the local SWAT teams that respond to crimes where there is no reason for such an excessive exhibition of force.

Now I’m not saying every government agent, every cop is bad. But more than not if they wish to keep their jobs they remain silent to the abuses of power by their peers. Just look at what happened to Frank Serpico when he spoke out against corruption in the New York Police Department. If you don’t know, then maybe you ought to rent the movie or Google his name and find out what happens to those who seek to rock the boat.

The truth is that we no longer have a system of justice in this country. Our rights are only as protected as we are willing to stand up for them.

Before I close I would like to touch upon how our right of property is also under attack. Remember, I went into pretty good detail explaining what property was. As I have stated numerous times, our government was one of limited power. To take from one and give to another, or cause one to be taxed to provide for others, [which are essentially the same thing], is not one of its powers.

So when we are taxed to provide programs like welfare, food stamps, WIC, or assistance for the mentally ill, it is a violation of our right to property. If you make more than I do does that give me the right to come to your home and demand that you give a portion of your earnings to provide for my family the things which my salary does not allow me to provide? No, that would be theft or coercion.

Well, remember those legal maxims I spoke of? Well here’s another one, “Nemo potest facere per alim quod per so non potest.” That means “No one can do that by another which he cannot do by himself.” That also means we cannot ask government to take from those who have, and distribute it to those who have not.

Our Founders understood this and held to it. In 1794 Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled the insurrection in San Domingo to live in Baltimore and Philadelphia. James Madison, as president, vetoed the appropriation stating, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Two years prior, in a letter to Edmund Pendleton, Madison wrote, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”

Our government has far exceeded the powers granted it by the people in 1789. It has assumed powers it was never intended it possess. It has trampled upon the rights it was designed to protect. And we the people have sat back and done nothing.

We argue back and forth over whether the Republicans or the Democrats are going to hold the reins of power but in reality both parties are equally guilty of expanding government and diminishing our rights.

When are the people of this country going to awaken to that fact?

In Section 201 of Locke’s Treatise we read, “It is a mistake, to think this fault is proper only to monarchies; other forms of government are liable to it, as well as that: for wherever the power, that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many.”

In Section 219 of Locke’s Treatise it states, “Where there is no longer the administration of justice for the securing of men′s rights, nor any remaining power within the community to direct the force, or provide for the necessities of the public, there certainly is no government left.”

Then finally, in Section 222 Locke declares, “The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.”

That is what our Founders did in 1776. They sought to dissolve the bonds which bound them to a tyrant and resume their original liberty.

I am not saying we need a revolution, but we need something. We need for the people to assert their rights and demand, or hold accountable, those who violate them.

There can be but one outcome if this country remains on its present course. With each succeeding change of administrations, every shift of power between the R’s and the D’s, our rights continue to be limited and the fruits of our labor, [our property] is diminished by inflation and by redistribution.

America cannot survive like this forever. It would behoove you, whatever your excuse is for not understanding these things, to take the time to do so. I don’t care if you really don’t care about the future of this country or not. You live here and, should you to remain living here, the future will affect you just as it will affect me.

Therefore you can choose to start learning about your rights and the laws that have been passed to violate them, or you can sit back and ignore the fact that shackles of slavery and servitude are being forged for you by those you place your trust in to do what is right and just.
Your choice…But don’t for a moment fool yourself into thinking that there is any justice left in this country. You are left alone because you pose no threat to them. But one of these days they will come for your, unless you wake up now and put a halt to their evil machinations.

Posted in General | 3 Comments

I Sure Hope You’re Happy

I’m really, REALLY getting tired of every couple of years hearing this nonsense about our immigration system being broken and that we need to pass some sort of ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’ Every time the subject is brought up the constituency of our Congressman make it known, loud and clear, that they do not support, or want, any kind of immigration reform, especially one that contains any form of amnesty for those who have entered this country illegally.

What makes matters worse is that this time around we have a lame duck president who has said that if the Congress does not take action he will. What does this guy think he is, an emperor? Does he realize that the job of the president is to ensure that the laws passed by Congress, and signed by former presidents, are put into effect and carried out according to the specifications set forth in the legislation? It matters little that a sitting president agrees or disagrees with past laws passed by former Congresses and signed by former presidents, it is his job to see that they are enforced until these laws are amended or repealed.

I don’t want to spend too much time on the subject of immigration, as I have exhausted the subject before and nobody seemed to care then, so I am pretty sure nobody cares now either. But the fact is that there are laws on the books that deal with immigration, particularly the illegal kind. They are clear in that it is a crime to enter this country illegally, to aid or provide shelter for those who are in this country illegally, and to hire those who are not in this country legally.

The problem boils down to one simple fact, neither party wants to enforce existing law to its fullest extent. Immigration has now become a political hot button that the two parties use to rally up support for their respective sides.

The Democrats want to see immigration reform with amnesty because they know that those granted amnesty tend to become registered Democrats. It is simply a means for them to increase their ranks. The Republicans, while they cry out against any reform to existing law, don’t want to see existing laws enforced because the agricultural industry relies upon illegal labor to pick their crops and the agricultural industry has a powerful lobby that is a big supporter of the GOP. So if existing law were to be enforced it would hurt a big part of the Republican base.

So neither side wants to see the law enforced, so the subject itself of immigration is a tool used by both parties to stir up their base and cause distrust for the other side. In the meantime we the people suffer as the border isn’t sealed, and illegal immigration continues.

Depending upon who you listen to there are anywhere from 10 to 40 million people in this country illegally.

Whenever there is talk of immigration reform it always includes some means of amnesty. We are told that these people are already here, that they have already contributed to society for any number of years, and that they deserve to come out of the shadows. Is that so?

Let me ask you this then. Why do we imprison serial killers for their crimes instead of granting them amnesty? No, I’m not being silly, I’m asking a serious question. When many of these killers were apprehended their friends and neighbors were shocked to learn that they were killers, they fit into society so well. Aside from their need to kill, they were typical Americans who worked, paid their taxes and did everything that you and I do.

Well they were incarcerated because murder is a crime, and crimes come with an associated punishment. It does not matter that in every other aspect these men were average people. The same goes for an illegal immigrant. They broke the law by entering this country illegally and they MUST be made to pay the consequences. That does NOT include amnesty, especially when there are thousands of others who are still waiting in line to enter this country through legal means.

You say we cannot deport them all. I say, how do you know, we haven’t even tried. In the 50′s President Eisenhower enacted Operation Wetback which was a stepped up program of rounding up and streamlining the process of deportation. It was successful in deporting millions of illegal aliens. Unfortunately it did not include any effort in beefing up our border to ensure that others could not waltz right in.

In 1986 when President Reagan signed into law the Simpson Mazzoli Act we were promised that our immigration laws would be strengthened so that we would never again need to pass another amnesty. Yet here we are again…

But immigration is not the subject I wish to address in this article, the people and their understanding of our system of government is.

When Mr. Obama stated that if the Congress did not act on immigration that he would, if the people of this country truly understood their system of government they would have called for his impeachment…right then and there.

It doesn’t matter if you personally agree that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed, or you disagree. The point is that the person whose job it is to execute, (the reason it is called the Executive Branch of government), had just declared that he is also going to legislate by bypassing the branch of government when it does not act according to his will.

Thus my previous question, who does Mr. Obama think he is, an emperor or a king?

You may say, “But we are a democracy and if the people want immigration reform then they should get it, no matter if the Congress does it or the President does it.” Regardless of the fact that I despise both political parties, most of America still aligns themselves with one or the other. And in the recent elections the Republicans gained control of the Congress. This means that a majority of the people in this country want to see laws enacted along GOP party lines. And if the GOP does not want to act upon immigration, isn’t that the will of the people?

Let me tell you something else, we are NOT a democracy. I don’t care how many times that word is repeated, it isn’t true. A democracy, in its purest form, is a “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them.”

Do we gather together in Washington D.C. and argue for which laws we want to see enacted? No, we elect representatives to do this for us. I’ll tell you what a true democracy is, it is two foxes and a chicken deciding what is going to be for dinner. In a democracy it doesn’t work out so well for the chicken. Democracy is pure majority rule, where the rights of the minority are not respected.

We are a republic. A republic is defined as, “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.”

The highest law in this country is the Constitution. All other law passed must be in accordance with what it says. The Constitution clearly states that ALL legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress. It does not say that the Executive may bypass Congress when it does not act according to his wishes or desires. Nor does it state that the Congress may enact laws simply because a majority of the people want to see these laws enacted.

No, there are limits to the powers granted our government and if you cared enough to learn what those powers were you would see that probably 99.9% of the laws our Congress currently passes goes above and beyond what those limits set forth.

The problem with a republic is that its existence relies 100% upon the people that inhabit it. If the people become ignorant regarding the limits they imposed upon their governors then it is an easy step for these governors to overstep their authority and become tyrants. If the people do not care about the limits imposed upon government and only want their wishes and desires to dictate which laws are passed then we become a representative democracy where the majority gets what they want regardless of the rights of the minority.

I can’t count the times I’ve criticized Barack Obama over things he has said or done and then been told that I am only criticizing him because he is black. No, I am criticizing him because he has violated the law. These same people never complained when I was leveling my criticism at George W. Bush.

I stand not for party, I stand for the rule of law. Our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, and our Bill of Rights are part of that law. I am against anything that violates both. I am also for the full implementation of existing law when it has been passed in accordance to the legal powers granted government.

For 28 years now our government has had existing immigration laws which it has refused to enforce. This lies at the feet of both political parties. Democrats have had complete control over the presidency and Congress, and so have Republicans. Both have failed to see that our immigration laws are enforced to the fullest extent.

Now they are telling me that our system is broken and needs to be fixed. Say they do, say they pass some form of immigration reform. I’m bet you my entire life’s savings, the deeds to my home and my vehicles that if they do all it will be is window dressing. They will spruce up the law a little bit, grant a pathway to citizenship, and then go about business as usual. Then, if our country survives for another 20-30 years we will be told that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. It will be because neither party wants to do anything substantial to stop the flow of illegal aliens into this country. The Republican base needs illegal workers for their farms and the Democrats want a new batch of voters every couple decades.

But don’t you dare tell me that our President can decide for himself that he will take it upon himself to legislate. Don’t you dare tell me that if a majority of the people want a law enacted that Congress is obligated to enact it.

There are limits as to the powers granted each branch of our government and there are limits in regards to what they may enact laws upon. By Mr. Obama saying that if Congress doesn’t do something he will it only shows that he has no regard for the separations of power put into our Constitution. If Congress lets him get away with it, again, they will have shown they have no regard for those same separation of powers.
This should worry you. You may be content now to sit back and let them pass all these laws that violate the Constitution and limit your rights, but what are you going to do when they begin passing laws that prohibit you from doing something you do care about? By the time that happens, if it hasn’t already, then government will have grown too big, too powerful, to stop it.

Then, as Winston Churchill so eloquently said, “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

No matter your personal views on the individual issues that face this nation, this is a spiritual battle for the survival of our nation. Our government can only function when the people of this country understand and demand that those they elect to represent them act in accordance with what the Constitution says. When the morality and the people’s understanding of their system of government become corrupt and degraded then their government becomes corrupt as well.

The corruptness that permeates, not only our nation’s, but our state capitols as well, is a reflection upon the people that inhabit this country. These men and women are not politicians, they are public servants who are elected to carry out the will of the people according to law. If we become corrupt, it inevitably follows that they will to. The problem is that when they become corrupt they also become powerful and then can wield their power against the people they were chosen to represent when the people become tired of their abuse of power.

Whatever happens in the future, although I may bitch and moan about government, my real anger is kindled towards the people of this country who allowed government to become this tyrannical monster that it is. It is you I blame for what is coming. It is because you cared more about having fun than educating yourselves that our country is in the state it’s in.

So keep that in mind the next time you get mad at government over something. If you had done your job as a citizen and kept informed maybe we could have prevented government from becoming this monster that regulates, controls, and monitors almost every aspect of our lives.

I sure hope you’re happy.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

I Am Not Accountable To You

I just returned from the polls awhile ago, having done my civic duty and voted. The other night at work someone asked me how I was going to vote, for Republican candidates, or Democrat. I said why does it matter? I wasn’t being sarcastic, I was being serious. Why should party take precedence over principle?

I don’t associate myself with any political party, I’m registered as an independent, which, to me, means that I am capable of independent thinking, not relying upon a political party with a specific platform and agenda to dictate how and what I think.

I do not need a group of corrupt lapdogs, [political parties], for the bankers or special interest groups to dictate to me which candidate to vote for, or how to vote on ballot measures. These people all work for the same people and our rights and our best interests are the least of their concerns.

I believe, as did George Washington, “The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon.” (To the Boston Selectmen, 28 July 1795) In January of 1979 I raised my right hand and swore an oath, which declares, ” I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Like many people who join the military, I did so only because I needed a job and the military offered full time employment plus good benefits. Upholding the oath I took upon enlisting, and upon re-enlisting twice more, never really crossed my mind.

Nonetheless, an oath once taken is binding for life. An oath is defined as “a solemn promise, often involving a divine witness, regarding one’s future action or behavior.” Therefore, even though I gave it little thought, I will be held accountable to God when it comes to how well I upheld that oath.

As I grew older I began to pay more attention to what was happening in this country. I still knew little to nothing about our Constitution and the men who wrote it. But I was concerned with the direction I saw our country heading. Finally, as a matter of personal pride, I felt I could no longer bitch and moan about things our government was doing unless I educated myself as to what government was actually supposed to be doing.

So, I began studying the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the beliefs held by the men who participated in creating these pillars of our system of government. What I found was that neither political party fully represents those principles. Sure, there is always a lesser of two evils, but choosing between two evils still gives you evil. It’s like asking how you would like to die; a slow painful death due to illness or a quick bullet to the head. It doesn’t matter, you still end up dead. So it is with choosing between the lesser of two evils. The only way to save our country is by standing up for what you truly believe in.

I find it both sad and amusing that people by the thousands will flock to our nation’s capital to gaze upon our country’s founding documents yet they know little to nothing as to what they say. Why does a piece of faded parchment hold more importance to people than the principles the writing upon those parchments outline?

As one who now understands the sacred obligation I took to uphold the Constitution, I can no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. My conscience demands that I vote for what I believe in, anything less would be a violation of that oath.

I have a ballcap that I wear which says Oathkeeper Since 1979. I wear it proudly as a badge of my dedication to the oath that I took to support the Constitution against All enemies, both foreign and domestic.

There is also an organization called Oathkeepers. Of all the organizations, including political parties, the Oathkeepers are the ones I most closely align myself with. Although not a paying member of Oathkeepers, I believe in, and adhere to, their stated mission, which is, “Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution.

Our motto is “Not on our watch!”

Being a citizen of this great nation is more than just simply being born here, or naturalized. It is more than just flying the flag on holidays, voting and paying your taxes. It also entails understanding our system of government, the principles this country was founded upon, and most importantly, living your life in support of the beliefs held by our Founders.

It is sad enough that the majority of the people in this country do not understand, or care about upholding the principles which made this country great. It is even worse when we tolerate others to come to this country whose sole reason for coming here is to leech from us the many benefits we provide them. It is intolerable that we allow certain peoples to come here whose ideology and beliefs run contradictory to what this nation stands for and work to undermine the principles upon which America was founded.

So today I voted. If there was no candidate which I felt would uphold the oath they would swear to support and defend the Constitution, I left that choice blank. My oath, my sacred allegiance is to the Constitution, not to the corrupt political parties which have both actively sought to undermine it.

It matters little to me that one party does less damage than the other. In that manner I am also a Three Percenter in that I will no longer tolerate any further usurpation of power by my government and no further erosion of my rights.

I may upset many with the things I have just said because by my voting for principle over party I am taking away votes from the lesser of the two evils presented me and allowing the worse of the two to win. I don’t care! As John Quincy Adams once said, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

My oath to uphold the Constitution is binding upon me until death. My love of country and my personal honor demand that I do what is right, what is not politically expedient. If that means I stand alone among millions, or I garner the disgust and anger of those who are willing to sacrifice their beliefs because it is better to have the lesser evil, then so be it. But I am not accountable to you, it will be up to God to judge me in that respect. I have made my choice and you will have to make yours. I can only say that, although I am distressed by the direction our country is taking, I sleep soundly at night knowing I stood for what is right.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Life Is Not Politically Correct

Allow me to ask you a simple question. If you had to choose between someone hurling insults at you, or someone threatening you, which would you choose? The logical answer would be to choose to be insulted rather than be threatened. Why then is so much emphasis place, these days, on the things people can and cannot say because they may ‘offend’ someone?

When I was growing up there was an old saying my parents kept repeating. It went, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me.” In a perfect world people would refrain from saying hurtful things to another, but this isn’t a perfect world and things get said that shouldn’t have been. But there is a little thing called the First Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees our right to say things, even if others find them offensive.

When I was going to high school there was a guy who made it his personal mission in life to insult me every chance he got. I would try to come back with a witty reply but he was so quick witted that he could come back with a retort that made anything I said make me look even worse. So I learned to live with the insults…I developed a thick skin and learned not to let them bother me.

Just this morning I found him on Facebook and sent him a message, not complaining, but thanking him for toughening me up for the things that life would throw at me. What he did for me reminds me of that old Johnny Cash song A Boy Named Sue where a drifter dad names his kid Sue because he knows he won’t be around to toughen the kid up and he knows that by naming him Sue the kid will either get tough or die.

People learn things from the experiences they face in life. If their lives have been sheltered and protected from adversity, then when adversity finally comes they will not know how to handle it. I’d rather be exposed to hardship, to insult, to adversity early on in life, and learn how to handle it, rather than live a sheltered life then suddenly be faced with hardship in later years. But not now, not in America. It seems everyone wants their kids to grow up without facing hardship. As a friend so often says, America is quickly becoming a nation of pussy’s.

What has become of this country when the people who inhabit it aren’t willing to stand up for their beliefs? I guess that pre-supposes that they actually have any beliefs and not just are following the herd without any real thoughts of their own.

If people had any real beliefs we wouldn’t see this constant flip flopping back and forth every 4 years when we elect a new president. Not that I’m saying one party is better than the other, it is just that people go four years with a president of one party, then are not satisfied, and then vote for a candidate from the other party and after 4 years get tired of that person and the cycle keeps repeating itself over and over and over.

The problem is that people don’t have any beliefs of their own so they are guided by emotions. If a candidate tugs at the right strings they vote for them based not upon research, but upon how good that candidate makes them feel. That is not your head voting, that is your heart. Due to the fact that many do not have any core beliefs of their own they are easily swayed by con men and corrupt career politicians who know how to say the right things to get you to vote for them instead of the other corrupt career politician.

But I drift from my subject.

It is perfectly alright for you to have beliefs of your own, but you must remember that you are not the only person on this planet and every single human being also has that right. Some of their beliefs may not be in agreement with yours, but that does not give you the right to silence them because their views disagree with yours.

I have gotten into numerous discussions regarding certain issues which have caused others to react, sometimes violently, to my views. Gun control, or my opinion that there should be less, not more of it, is one of those issues.

In a perfect world when confronted with conclusive evidence that something people had believed to be true was a lie, they would discount the lie and cling to the truth. But this is not a perfect world and in the issue of gun control people would rather recite the litany of lies they have been told about guns rather than accept cold hard facts.

Then there is this political correctness nonsense that permeates society these days. What is political correctness if it is not a form of censorship that seeks to silence views and opinions that are controversial or offensive to others? Allow me to give two examples to explain my point.

Recently, in Georgia, a man went to vote wearing an NRA, (National Rifle Association) ball cap. He was told that he had to remove his cap and leave it outside before he could enter the polling place. He was told the NRA is a GOP organization and that by his wearing that cap he was promoting GOP principles and that violated election law.

Is the Second Amendment, and the right it protects, a GOP issue or is it an issue of those who support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights versus those who don’t? I can see if he was wearing a shirt or hat that said vote no on Measure XXXX, but no, this was a hat for an organization that stands up for our rights…even though you may not to exercise it, your right as well. Why should a person be banned for wearing a hat that advertises for a group that stands for our rights?

Then there was the guy in Webster Texas who was told to remove his American flag from the balcony outside his apartment because it ‘offended’ the Muslim community. Say what? How can the flag of the country that people chose to live in be offensive? If the American flag is so offensive to people’s of another nation, maybe those people do not belong in this nation, maybe our immigration laws need to be changed to prohibit their coming here if our flag, our customs, our beliefs ‘offend’ them!

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, that is a simple truth. Not everyone has to agree with those beliefs, that also is a simple fact. But to silence one, or prohibit them from speaking their mind on issues they feel are of importance, (no matter how ridiculous those beliefs may sound) goes against everything the First Amendment stands for. Freedom of speech means exactly what it says, you are free to say whatever you want, no matter how offensive.

It is just a matter of having a certain amount of restraint and not saying certain things just to be offensive. That is where common sense and a small measure of respect for others comes in. But to tell someone they cannot discuss an issue like immigration and its affect upon our nation simply because certain ethnic groups may be offended is wrong. To tell a person that they cannot stand for the principles that were held by our nation’s Founders because they offend people is also wrong.

Nine times out of ten, if people would put aside their emotions and actually think about what someone was saying they might come to the conclusion that they were wrong and the view they once found to be offensive was in fact the truth. But then again that precludes a certain amount of thinking, which far too many are loathe to do.

I will conclude this with a quote from a speech delivered to the officers at Newburgh by George Washington, “… if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.”

So speak your mind America, and be man enough to allow others to do the same without getting all butt hurt by what they say. Also, be willing enough to admit that, if provided with evidence to the contrary, that your beliefs were wrong.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

I Just Don’t Get It

I’ve been at this, [writing articles], for quite some time now. I don’t do it for pay, for your entertainment, or for my own personal enjoyment. I do it because I don’t like what I see happening in my country and I am trying to awaken the people so that they too can become as mad, and afraid, about what direction our country is taking. But as of yet, I have not seen that anything I have said has made any difference.

Sure I understand that my articles may reach people and affect a change in their way of thinking, but I have yet to hear, or see, that change occur in sufficient numbers to alter the course our country is taking. So I have to ask myself, ‘Why do I bother?’

The only answer I can come up with is that after having done all the research I have regarding our system of government, the founding of our nation, and the overall thoughts regarding liberty and freedom which were held by our nation’s Founders, I can say that I am right and most people are wrong. I am not trying to be arrogant and cocky, I have the facts to back that statement up. Can most Americans back up their views regarding the purpose of government with facts and evidence? If not, then I rest my case.

I was raised to believe that there is right and wrong, and that it is good to stand up for what is right and good to take a stand against what is wrong. What I see happening in America today is wrong. Our government is corrupt, it abuses it’s powers, it limits our freedom, and it is evil.

I simply cannot understand how anyone can place anything above learning the truth about the actions of their government. Have people become so apathetic, so complacent that they can sit back and enjoy their favorite television show without even the slightest twinge of guilt that they are letting their country go to hell right before their eyes without even a token comment of concern?

If someone, a neighbor, a cop, or even me, where to knock on your door, and when you answered shackle you and put you in a cell, you would protest that you were innocent and why were you being detained. Yet by your inaction, and by the action of the people you vote for without your understanding of our system of government, a prison is being built all around you.

The only thing that separates a free man from a slave is that a free man has rights and slaves do not. Well for cryin out loud people your God-given unalienable rights are being stripped from you by bureaucrats all the way from your local and state to the highest levels in our country. And you sit back and do nothing!

They tell you that all these things are done for your security, your safety, and you willingly accept these platitudes. Your phone calls and e mails are monitored by the NSA and you say so what? Your every action is filmed and recorded by an endless array of cameras and surveillance methods, (and soon to be a sky filled with spy drones), and you say so what? Your right to defend yourself is being limited by laws which say when you can use force to protect yourself and your family, and by laws which take away your ability to own the weapons to fight against tyranny, AND YOU SAY SO WHAT?

And you call yourselves Americans?!?

I’m sure at some point in each of your lives you have seen an old western movie with a cattle drive, or cattle grazing out in the open land. Those cows felt that they were free, as much as a cow can be free. They were free to graze, to sleep, to reproduce as they pretty much saw fit. But they were still slaves to their owners, and their eventual destination was the slaughterhouse.

Just because you can make certain choices in your life; what clothes to buy, what to eat for supper, where to work, what to watch on TV, etc. etc. it does not mean that you are free. You are in a controlled pen where you are allowed to live under the illusion of freedom when all your real rights have been taken from you by the very people you vote for to safeguard them. And you are so blind to it that you think that people such as myself are your enemy.

I could, quite honestly, care less about you. I don’t care if you sit at home watching idiotic TV shows, or if you are gay, or if you grow weed in your back yard. You leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone. I get upset, however, when the choices you make at the election booth causes my rights to be curtailed. You have settled for evil and corruption instead of choosing for wise and honorable men to fill the seats of power across our land, and your poor choices have led us to where we are today.

I often hear of tolerance. I hear people say I must be tolerant of other people’s views and thoughts. Well when are people going to start being tolerant about my rights? When can our children pray in school and be shown tolerance? When can I own the weapons to defend my family and my liberty and I be shown tolerance? When can I be free to pick up the phone, or send an e mail, and have my private conversations free from peering eyes and ears?

I know I am not, but if I were the last human being in this country who felt this way, I would rather stand alone than be counted among you sheep who blindly follow your shepherds to your own destruction.

As I have said, I have been at this for a long time now. In fact I am going on my second decade of writing these commentaries. I have yet to have ONE person come up and say that what I have said has caused them to change their way of thinking. I have met other like-minded individuals, but I have not made a difference. Hence the anger and hostile tone of this article.

I have pretty much lost all faith in the American people. They won’t believe anything I say until the destruction and ruin of this republic, that I so often predict, actually happens and shatters their little cocoon and reality slaps them across the face. But by then it will be too late, the game will have been lost and our rights forever stripped away.

So go ahead, go back to your TV or whatever else it is that keeps you occupied. Pay no heed to what our nation’s founding documents say. But one day if you hear shooting, or armored vehicles coming down your street, remember that Neal tried to tell you this would happen and you were to concerned with your own entertainment and self-gratification to listen.

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Go Ahead, Call Me Paranoid

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.” ~Joseph Heller~

I don’t know how many of my readers are movie buffs but I like movies, all kinds of movies. I recently watched the latest Captain America film, The Winter Soldier, and the plot hit me like a bolt of lightning. If any of you like films, but haven’t seen this one, I’ll try not to give away too much of the story but I need to explain why I’m talking about a Captain America movie.

The basic plot of the film is that SHEILD, the agency that was supposedly protecting our safety, has been infiltrated by HYDRA, the bad guys in the first Captain America film. They have a new plan for global domination and it’s up to Captain America and the Black Widow, (Scarlett Johansson) to stop them.

Throughout the film there were scenes that screamed at me, “YES, YES, This is exactly what’s happening right now in America.” One in particular is how when they were trying to locate Captain America and the Black Widow they spoke of monitoring e-mails, Twitter posts, and other social media for any mention of his name. That reminded me of how the NSA is currently, and has been for quite awhile, monitoring our lives via their data mining of the internet and phone conversations. But I stray from my main point.

The scene I really want to talk about occurs when Cap and the Black Widow discover the bunker where SHIELD was founded. In it they find an ancient computer system and they insert a flash drive that activates the system. It is then that Dr. Zola, the Red Skull’s scientist sidekick from the first Captain America film makes his appearance.

This Dr. Zola is a computer generated version in which all his thoughts and memories have been stored on computers, sort of like in the Johnny Depp film Transcendence. To stall the heroes of the film Dr. Zola explains HYDRA’s plans to them, and it is this plan that is the key point of my article.

To get my point across I will have to provide you with the entire quote from the film, so if you haven’t seen it and don’t want to have it spoiled, I suggest you stop reading now. If not, here is the quote in its entirety:

Dr Zola: HYDRA was founded on the belief that humanity could not be trusted with its own freedom. What we did not realize was that if you tried to take that freedom, they resist. The war taught us much. Humanity needed to surrender its freedom willingly. After the war, S.H.I.E.L.D. was founded, and I was recruited. The new HYDRA grew, a beautiful parasite inside S.H.I.E.L.D. For 70 years, HYDRA has been secretly feeding crises, reaping war. And when history did not cooperate, history was changed.

Natasha Romanoff: That’s impossible. S.H.I.E.L.D. would’ve stopped you.

Dr. Zola: Accidents will happen. HYDRA created a world so chaotic that humanity is finally ready to sacrifice its freedom to gain its security. Once the purification process is complete, HYDRA’s New World Order will arise…”

There are two points in this quote that I would like to address. First is the part regarding how people have to give up their freedom willingly. How many of you think that say fifty, or a hundred years ago, the government could have just come out and said, “We are going to ban the Bill of Rights.” and the people would have calmly accepted that? Pretty unlikely, isn’t it?

But, if you create a state of fear it is human nature that the masses will look to its leaders to protect them from all these supposed threats that they face…even if it means giving up a few of their rights. That is why I have repeatedly quoted Benjamin Franklin in my articles, who stated, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

I’m reminded of a scene from one of my favorite films V For Vendetta, where V addresses the people of England, “And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen?

Who’s to blame? Well, certainly, there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid.

Who wouldn’t be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to insert any government agency established to protect you .”

Yes they are films, yes they are fiction, but does that mean that the words they say cannot actually happen in reality?

Just look at what has happened in America to our rights, and all because we are afraid of something. We fear terrorism so we allow the creation of Homeland Security, the passage of The Patriot Act, and all these other laws and regulations which violate our rights. All based upon the fear of bogeymen terrorists. We pass laws violating our sacred right to keep and bear arms because we fear that our children might end up victims of school shootings.

Fear people, fear is how they control and manipulate you. People fear what they do not know and do not understand. That is why I harp incessantly about becoming informed. If you knew the truth about things you would not be afraid, you would be angry, and an angry people would not willingly give up their rights for a lie, no matter how big it is.

After all, in that Captain America film Agent Romanoff, (the Black Widow) mentions Operation Paperclip in which German scientists were brought to America after WW II. THAT is NOT fiction, it is reality…LOOK IT UP!!! So there can be truth in movies. You just have to be looking for it, and informed enough to recognize it for what it is. They, (Hollywood) may just be rubbing your face in the fact that they can tell you the truth and you are too uninformed to even see it.

And my second point in Dr. Zola’s quote comes when he talks of the purification. To explain I will have to give away more of the film, but that’s the way these things go. Later in the film the heroes learn that HYDRA’s master plan is to float 3 of those hovering aircraft carriers like the one from the Avengers film. They will be linked to a satellite which will decide who is a threat to HYDRA and must be eliminated. The aircraft carriers have the ability to target multiple objectives and kill thousands within seconds.

That is the purification, getting rid of anyone that poses a threat to HYDRA’s plans for a World Order.

You say that couldn’t happen, the people would rise up. Is that so? Let’s look at some history. Before the fall of the Soviet Union, when it first came into existence, Josef Stalin purged, (purified), his country by killing off anywhere between 20 to 60 million people. Did they rise up? Did the people of Germany rise up when the SS rounded up all dissidents? Have the people of America risen up when an average citizen is targeted by government for exercising their unalienable rights?

The simple answer is NO. People tend not to notice the atrocities going on right in front of their very eyes until it affects them personally. But by then it is too late to do anything about it. Such is the state of affairs in America today. People such as myself who stand for limited government and the preservation of our unalienable rights have been labeled as extremists and the media has caused you to fear us. It is because the vast majority of the people in this country are ignorant and uninformed that they buy into that lie. We don’t want to hurt you. In fact we honestly don’t even think about you that much. All we want is for people to leave us alone and let us live our lives alone with the freedom our Founders intended we all have.

Did you know that during the purges in the former Soviet Union, many of those rounded up and imprisoned or killed were those in key positions in government who helped establish Communism in Russia? I have heard it said that they were referred to as ‘useful idiots.’ They helped further the cause, but before they could realize that they had been betrayed by the cause they supported, they were put in prison or killed off.

Think about that.

In closing I would like to leave you with one last quote. This one is not from a film but from the time when the NAZI’s were in charge in Germany. It comes from a Protestant Pastor named Martin Niemöller. It is well worth your time to ponder his words carefully:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

We, those of us who speak incessantly about rights, pose you absolutely no threat. In fact we are the guardians of YOUR rights as well. If we are gone, who will be left to protect you? If you answer the government, you have not understood a damned thing I’ve just said and you are beyond hope.

So please, for once in your lives think about things. Put aside your political party prejudices and think about the facts. Do some research if you must, but become informed before it is too late.

Posted in General | 2 Comments