Neal's Soapbox

When Revolution Once Again Comes To America
(It Will Be YOUR Fault)
~Neal~

Be careful how you answer this: Do you truly believe than any individual, or group of individuals, have the right to force their views upon you; make you do things you do not wish to do? If you answered yes, then regardless of your justification for saying so, you believe that one group of society has the right to subjugate and oppress another; meaning that one segment of society can enslave another.

If, however, you answered no, then how can you support an entity that does just that? By that I mean how can you support a system of government that passes laws that take from some and give to others, or passes laws that violate the fundamental rights of all, or of a group that some disagree with?

One of the most fundamental rights of all creatures living upon the Earth, including man, is the right to self-defense and protecting their property. A lion, living in the wild, will fight to the death to protect its young, or that which it has killed to sustain its existence. That is a fundamental law of nature, and yet there are those living among us, those who claim to be educated, enlightened, who want to see that right taken away from us…and yes I am talking about those who support gun control legislation.

You see, your idea of gun control differs from mine. You believe gun control should be controlling who gets to own guns and what kind of guns the people are allowed to keep and bear. My idea of gun control is the ability to put two rounds through the same hole in a target; controlling the firearm so that you hit what you are aiming at.

Now before I take this any further I would like to diverge for a moment and ask you another question. Who do you think won America’s independence? While George Washington may have been on the battlefield with his men, it was the common foot soldier, the little guy like you and me who stood toe to toe against the British Redcoats.

What did these brave men get in reward for their gallantry and sacrifice if not a big stiff dick rammed up their ass when those who they trusted imposed a system of government upon them that did not represent them at all.

If you were to truly examine the drafting of the Constitution, and the ratification debates you will notice that it was the noble born, the lawyers, the merchants, the bankers who were represented by those who supported this amazing new document, (and I say that with a heavy dose of sarcasm). It was the little guy who was represented by those who opposed this new system of government; for they knew what would happen to the rights and liberty of the people should this system of government go into effect. These Anti-Federalist fought tooth and nail to prevent this system of government from becoming more than a mere proposal on a piece of parchment; they fought to preserve what the little guy had risked his life to secure on the battlefields of the Revolution – his liberty.

However, they lost that battle and this new system of government went into operation. Even so, they did get those who supported it to agree to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution; placing certain limitations upon this new government’s ability to violate or infringe upon certain rights. But as with any document, they are merely words upon a piece of paper that are meaningless unless they have the threat of force backing them up.

As an example, when our government enacts a law do you think it is the lawmakers themselves that patrol our streets enforcing them? No, it is an armed force, or policing force, that makes sure that the laws are complied with.

Now we, as a people, (at least according to what we are taught), established this system of government. We delegated certain powers to this government while reserving some powers to the States, and some to ourselves. Yet where can we find the power to enforce those limitations upon government if not in the 2nd Amendment? It certainly isn’t to be found in the body of the Constitution.

Sure we can vote the bad apples out; but what if those we replace them with are just as bad, or if they have no effect upon limiting government itself from overstepping its limited authority and violating our rights and liberty? How effective do you think you would be if you called your Congressman, or the President, and said, “Hey, you know what you’re doing violated the Constitution and my rights. I want you to stop doing that right now.”

Believe me, I’ve tried that approach; I’ve written and called many times, only to be thanked for participating in the democratic process, and that my thoughts would be taken into consideration. Consideration? Fuck you, you work for me and you’ll obey the limitations imposed upon you or your authority over me is null and void.

You see, that is part of the problem right there; those assclowns in positions of authority think that they know better than I do how I should live my life. They pass laws telling me what I can and cannot do, and pass other laws restricting my God-given rights and liberty; while a majority of the people bend over and let themselves be screwed out of the freedom they should be defending.

Which brings me back to my original question: Do you think that any individual, or group of individuals have the right to force their views upon anyone else. Well, if you support this government, regardless of which party has a majority control, you certainly do support that belief.

Where does that leave those who want to live a life free of oppressive laws and taxes? Are we to silently submit to tyranny and oppression simply because the majority of the people are too ignorant or apathetic to resist it? Is that what this country has come to, that a majority can tell the remainder of society that their rights, their liberty do not matter anymore?

People, for the most part, don’t realize how dangerously close this country is to another internal war, waged by those who would oppress others and those who have had enough oppression and have chosen to say NO MORE!!!

Let me ask you something, what was it that won the American Revolution? Sure, it was the foot soldiers that defeated the British, along with a little help from the French, but do you think they’d have won had they marched onto the battlefields carrying pitchforks and shovels? No, it was the fact that they were armed that gave them a fighting chance against the British. And where did those guns come from; did the British give them to them so they could fight against their authority? That’s pretty ludicrous if you ask me. I can see it now, John Q. Colonist walking up to some random Redcoat and saying, “Excuse me sir, I need your musket so I can shoot you with it.”

The fact is that most of the arms carried into battle during the Revolution were privately owned, and it was the very fact that the British tried to take them away from the Colonists at Lexington and Concord that the first shots of the Revolution were exchanged. Yet 2-1/2 centuries later, our government along with the support of a large portion of society, are trying to legislate our right to keep and bear arms away from us.

I have to ask, are you people out of your minds?

But Neal, society has changed, there are more criminals out there than there were in 1776. True, but have you ever stopped to think that the reason we have more crime is due to the fact that our morals are in the gutter? Have you ever stopped to think that the reason we have so many repeat offenders is because the punishment isn’t severe enough to cause them to think twice before committing a second offense? Have you ever stopped to think that a lot of the things people are being arrested for should never have been made illegal in the first place?

Not only that, we have placed so many restrictions upon when, where, and under what circumstances a person can defend themselves, their family or their possessions, that it is open season upon victims by those who would commit crimes against them. If people could just shoot those who tried to harm them, or steal from them, I’d be willing to bet that crime rates would plummet dramatically. But oh no, that’s not fair, it isn’t the criminals fault, society is to blame.

Screw that, we all make choices and if I were to jump into a pit of crocodiles at the zoo and be eaten it is not societies fault, it is mine for being an idiot.

Did you know that in the olden days horse theft was a hanging offense? But nowadays if someone steals your car or truck you’re lucky if they spend a year in jail. We have these shooting sprees where an armed person comes into a roomed of unarmed victims and opens fire, and we ask ourselves how this happened. It happened because we have created a society full of potential victims; that’s how it has happened. We have neutered ourselves; taken away both the will and the means of defending ourselves.

Now we want to take the next step in this insanity by taking away our ability to defend ourselves against the largest criminal organization in the country – our own government. When I hear people talk about more gun control, or taking the guns out of the hands of the people I have to ask myself if those proposing such measures have a single functioning brain cell in their heads.

I can understand the government wanting to do that, for if they succeed they could do anything they wanted to us without fear of reprisal or resistance, but to hear that from my fellow citizens is alarming and causes me to question their intelligence.

I hope that I’m wrong in believing most people are absolute morons, but for you to restore my confidence in your ability to think critically you’re going to have to show me that you’re capable of doing so first. So I want you to read a few quotes from a few people who knew a whole lot more about liberty and the law than most people today do. See if any of this can sink in and then I’ll resume my rant.

-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 when 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. St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries
-Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in 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 band of regular troops. Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

And finally there is this, taken from Edward Abbey’s Abbey Road, written in 1979, “Let us hope our weapons are never needed – but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government – and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.”

Our government has tried to ban the guns themselves, and to a certain degree they have been successful. Already certain guns are not allowed to be owned by private citizens, and if they can be owned one has to jump through all manner of hoops and pay all manner of fees to own them.

Yet this, in and of itself is an infringement, for the 2nd Amendment does not say what kinds of guns we can own, only that it is our right to do own arms. My God, how hard is it for people to wrap their heads around the fact that we have an entity, (government) telling those who created it what kind of guns they can keep and bear, yet this same entity is allowed to keep and bear the very guns it denies us the right to own so that it can enforce its laws upon us.

If that alone does not frighten you, then there is something seriously wrong with your logic.

However, any effort by the government to enact a total ban on the private ownership of guns would be taken by many as the last straw; the line in the sand which people would not tolerate; so they have learned from their previous mistakes.

Now I want to make something abundantly clear. I believe our government is evil, and that it seeks absolute dominion over us. But that does not mean they are stupid – far from it in fact. They have learned from past efforts to ban guns that they will meet with stiff opposition, if not outright rebellion, by the people.

So what they do is pass these little laws, saying you can’t own this type of gun, or that if you’re on some watch list you can’t have any guns, or if you’re suspected of POSSIBLY committing a future crime your right to own guns can be denied; i.e. Red Flag Laws. Some States, such as my home State of California, have enacted laws requiring a background check upon the purchase of ammunition, and if you aren’t on record as owning a registered gun requiring that particular ammo, they won’t sell it to you.

Gee, can you imagine what would have happened in 1776 if the British had said, “You can own all the guns you want, you just can’t own the powder and ball for them.” In fact, had you read your history of the Revolution you would know that the British did try that, and that it too added to the resolve of the Colonists that the British were seeking to impose an absolute despotism over them.

Yet we stand by and do nothing when our own government does the same damned thing?!?

There is a saying that is attributed to so many people that I won’t even begin to list all to whom it is attributed to; nevertheless the saying is quite true. That saying is, “There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”

The soapbox is what I do, write my commentaries trying to educate, inform, and shift people’s beliefs away from the concept that government is their friend. The ballot box is simply the vote; and we’ve seen that it has been ineffective in restraining the growing tyranny over the people of America. The jury box is the concept of jury nullification; something I have also written about in the past. And finally there is the ammo box, the means by which a people pushed into the corner have as their last defense against tyrants.

Now you tell me, regardless of what you think about the purpose government should serve, what would YOU do if you saw your rights and freedoms being taken from you by a government, acting either of its own arbitrary volition, or on behalf of a majority of the people, and all other means of redress had failed? What would you do to defend your rights if you saw that your only means of defending them was to take up arms against those who sought to oppress you?

NOW YOU KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY OF US FEEL ABOUT YOU AND YOUR GOVERNMENT!!

In 1787 Thomas Jefferson wrote, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” He didn’t say we should vote harder, or call our Congressmen and women begging them not to pass this law or that law, he said, TAKE UP ARMS.

That time quickly approaches, whether you choose to see it or not; and if you keep trying to take our guns from us it will come much sooner than you’re ready for and their will bloodshed in the streets of America. And the sad thing about it will be that it will be your fault because you chose to support and defend tyrants instead of resisting them while you had the peaceful means of doing so. For as John F. Kennedy once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

Let me see, according to the news reports a shooting occurred on a Pensacola, Florida Naval Training base. The suspected shooter, Mohammed Alshamrani, was a Saudi national here in America undergoing training as a guest of the United States Navy. That much pretty much everyone agrees upon, but it is here that the rest of the story splinters. For instance, I have heard that Alshamrani used a shotgun; I have heard he used an AR-15; I have heard he used a handgun, and I have also heard he used a combination of all three. I have also heard that it was, and then it wasn’t a terrorist related shooting.

So I’m gonna go with the ‘facts’ as they are being reported; at least those that are somewhat consistent between the various news sources; that some raghead motherfucker from Saudi Arabia, here as a guest of the United States, somehow got onto a U.S. military base with a weapon and opened fire upon people on that installation. And just for your enlightenment, I italicized the word facts because I do not trust the media to tell the truth any more than I believe that drinking used motor oil is a safe and effective treatment for a sore throat.

I know this is not 100% accurate, there are those who can think, but I think that for most people in this country they see a story like this and their minds think like this: SHOOTING + PEOPLE DEAD = CALLS FOR STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS.

I’m sorry, my mind doesn’t work that way; it doesn’t respond emotionally to an event with mindless reliability; I tend to actually think about things before coming to any conclusions. You see, I question the ‘official’ narrative on things, look for holes in the story and ask how and why something like this happened before I come to any conclusions; and this story has me asking A LOT of questions.

For instance, how did a single Saudi National get onto a heavily secured base with a weapon and then use that weapon to kill 3, and wound 8 others before being killed? Also, why is it that local authorities, and not base military police, that were called upon to respond to the shooting in progress? I mean gee whiz, we rely upon these guys to defend our country and yet they cannot be relied upon to defend their own bases?

Now I’m not knocking our fighting men and women with that comment, just asking the logic of having well trained fighting men and women put at the mercy of the response time of local law enforcement instead of being armed and ready to defend themselves against anyone who would threaten them or the security of the installation they work at.

So in essence, what we’re saying is that the home turf of the best equipped and best trained military machine in the world is a Gun Free Zone. So we can send our men and women off to the four corners of the globe and they can kick ass, but they’re defenseless at home because all their guns are locked away in an armory. Makes perfect sense to me…

Another thing that crossed my mind was, where was the Department of Homeland Security when this shooting took place? Didn’t the ‘authorities’ tell us that 9/11 happened because our intelligence, (and I use that word lightly), apparatus wasn’t communicating well between the various branches and that DHS was established to remedy that flaw? Well, if this was a terrorist attack, committed by a lone wolf terrorist, then DHS did an outstanding job of keeping the Homeland Secure. (Sarcasm intended)

Oh but Neal, they couldn’t have seen this coming; one guy going off the deep end, or hiding his intentions until it was too late to take action to prevent it. That could very well be true, but then those whose jobs it is to keep this country safe are telling us that we must accept Red Flag Laws that allow people to ‘turn in’ those they feel are unstable, or may pose a threat, and have those people’s guns taken from them.

And, according to CNN, this guy, Alshamrani was carefully vetted before being allowed access to a U.S. military installation. Yet you’re saying we should ban the right of everyday John and Jane Q. Citizen from owning guns based upon the hearsay, rumors and fears of their friends, neighbors and co-workers? What, have you lost your marbles?

So what you’re saying is that it is fine to deny a fundamental right to our own citizens simply because something about them frightens you, but it is not alright to keep a close watch upon a foreign national, who happens to come from a country whose leaders are among the largest supporters of State Sponsored Terrorism on the planet simply because they are our allies; and to do so might offend them?

After all, we can’t stereotype those from Muslim countries; that would be wrong. But I suppose it is perfectly acceptable to stereotype gun owners; calling us all crazed lunatics and domestic terrorists who want to topple the American system of government. It’s amazing that your puny heads don’t explode with the enormity of your hypocrisy and double standards!

Anyway, these are just a few of the thoughts that have crossed my mind as the news media began reporting on the shooting on the Pensacola Naval Base in Florida; and I’m sure I’ll have more of them as the story unfolds. It’s just a shame that so many fall for the lies and propaganda without every questioning the ‘official’ narrative. It seems that what few functioning brain cells the masses have are turned off, or are focused on the upcoming football games this weekend.

And people wonder why this country is so fucked up….

If you truly knew your history,
this flag would not offend you…

…but this flag would.

Every so often I will go somewhere and someone will see the tattoo on my right arm and scowl at me, or say some derogatory comment about it. When they do that it doesn’t bother me, at least not personally; I can take pretty much any shit that someone heaps upon me. What bothers me is the fact that they believe the lie that the Confederate Battle Flag represents prejudice and racism, and that the Civil War was fought over slavery.

Far too many people in this country allow their ideas to be formed by watching some documentary, listening to some instructor, or by reading some book about whatever subject that interests them regarding a historical event.

Know this: If you base your opinions on a subject based upon any of those things, you are basing your opinions upon the opinions of somebody else, not upon the facts; and that includes if you base your opinions upon what I say or write. The only way, and I mean ONLY way that you can be sure that your opinions stand on solid ground is if you have done your research; read the source documents and look at the actions taken by the participants of a particular event.

That is why I can tell you, without any doubt, the Civil War was not fought over the issue of whether to end or preserve slavery in America, and therefore, the Confederate Battle Flag does not represent slavery and prejudice. Now the interference in the expansion of slavery into new states, and the refusal of some in the North to return escaped slaves to their masters may have been a factor in the decision of some of the Southern States to secede, but it WAS NOT why the war was fought. To begin with, the South did not raise an army to invade the North the North raised an army to invade the South; so the North was the aggressor in this war.

To understand why I say slavery was not the cause of the war one must take a thorough look at slavery itself; and not its moral implications. Listen, I think slavery of any kind is evil; which is why I oppose our government today, because it enslaves each and every one of us regardless of the fact that we get to vote for our masters.

Slavery in America was not limited to the 13 British Colonies, it was practiced by the French and Spanish Colonists as well. For instance, going back to 1632 the French began the practice of slave labor in the territories they inhabited in the New World. Slavery in the British Colonies dates back to the establishment of Jamestown, the first British Colony in America. I’m not justifying it, just saying it had been around a long time before the Civil War was fought.

When the British Colonies began considering independence the Second Continental Congress appointed a Committee of Five to draft a declaration stating America’s intent to separate from Great Britain. Thomas Jefferson was chosen to be the primary author of this document. In Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence Jefferson decried the institution of slavery, and laid the blame for it at the feet of the King of England. Yet Jefferson’s words were too harsh for the Committee of Five, and they removed that wording from the final draft.

You may, or may not have known something, but I’d bet there is something you did not know; that of Committee of Five Jefferson was the only Southerner; the remaining members were all from the North. Those members were, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman. So here we have an instance where a Southerner is decrying the evil of slavery, while we have five Northerners saying, “Damn Jefferson, you can’t say shit like that.”

In any case slavery existed at the time of our Revolution, and later, when the Constitution was being written. In fact, it was a Northern Colony, Massachusetts, that became the first Colony to pass legislation legalizing the owning of slaves. This happened when Massachusetts passed its Body of Liberties in 1641. In fact, at that time Massachusetts was the leading importer of slaves into the Colonies; but that would change over time as tiny Rhode Island soon took over 90% of the slave trade for all 13 Colonies. If you’ll notice, both are Northern States.

Then along comes James Madison and his gang of scoundrels and shysters, who gathered together in the city of Philadelphia to undermine and overthrow the Confederacy established during the American Revolution. Now these crooks had the perfect opportunity to do what was right and introduce wording into their proposed system of government that would have abolished slavery if this new system of government they were proposing were to be accepted. Instead, they chose to not place such wording in their document because it would make ratifying it much harder in the South where slavery was necessary for the Southern economy.

Now I need to divert from my intended subject for a moment to explain something. The Southern economy was primarily agricultural and there were many large scale plantations, (farms if you will) that required a large labor force to maintain. Again, I’m not justifying slavery, just explaining the facts of the situation. So now these large plantation owners had a choice; either purchase slaves, or hire white workers to work their fields and harvest their crops.

White workers could quit at any time, and imposed a heavy burden upon the owners of these plantations; meaning their profits would not be very good if they had to pay their labor force a steady wage. Slaves, on the other hand, required a one-time fee for their purchase, and after that all they required was food and shelter to maintain. So slave labor was more cost effective for them; which is why so many slaves worked in the South in the fields. Having made that purchase, those slaves became their property, (as evil as that idea may be), so when one of those slaves escaped it is logical to think that the owner would want his property returned to him; which some in the North were increasingly unwilling to do. This meant that the farmers had to manage their farms with one less worker, or go out and buy another.

As evil as slavery is, I would like for you to consider the subject of illegal immigration for a moment. Many of these illegal immigrants work the fields harvesting the produce you find on the shelves in your supermarket. Being here illegally means that the farmers can pay them far less than what they would have to pay white workers under our labor laws; not to mention they don’t require any of the other impositions, such as workman’s compensation insurance.

I wonder, among all those who decry the influx of illegal aliens into this country, how would they feel if illegal immigration just stopped and white folks had to work the fields and do the backbreaking work these illegal aliens currently do? I also wonder, how would most Americans feel if they went to the supermarket and saw a 150 – 200% increase in the cost of their produce after the farmers had to start paying a ‘living’ wage, plus all the government required programs like workers comp?

So yeah, slavery was evil, but I sure haven’t read of any massive migration of Northern workers who wanted to move South and pick cotton or harvest tobacco. Those plantation owners had farms to manage, and unless white folks were willing to do the backbreaking work to maintain them, they needed a slave labor force.

Another thing was, the Northern textile mills required the cotton they produced to make the wool they sold and used to make garments. So the North wasn’t particularly interested in introducing wording into any proposed plan for a system of government that might cause their textile mills to shut down, or lose the one commodity they depended upon to dry up; not to mention all the profits being made by Northern ship owners off the importation and sale of those slaves.

So the North was just as much to blame for the institution of slavery as those who used those slaves as a labor force. If we’re gonna be truthful, we gotta accept the facts regardless of who those facts make look bad.

So when the proposed Constitution was being argued behind closed doors in Philadelphia, it was decided not to introduce wording which would abolish slavery. What was argued over was whether slaves would count towards representation in the lower house of Congress. This was a key argument that almost led to the dissolution of the convention and was settled when the 3/5’s clause was introduced; meaning slaves would count as 3/5’s a person when doing the census and determining representation in the House of Representatives.

At the time the South was not very densely populated, while the North was with large business, banking and industrial centers. So population was essential for the South to ensure that their interests were not ignored by the passage of laws in Congress. This was why such heated debates took place after the Constitution went into effect, for if new States were allowed into the Union which were not slave holding States, the Northern States could dominate Congress and subjugate and oppress the South.

You see, if we’re going to have a thorough discussion of the Civil War we have to look at the climate, the circumstances, and the differing interests of the two regions of the country; that is if we are to be honest about it. We can’t look at it from the narrow perspective of whether slavery is/was evil; for that limits your understanding of the whole story behind the Civil War.

So here we have a country that is divided yet united; meaning one segment of the country is primarily business and industry, while the other is primarily agricultural. The part that is business and industry related requires government protection against foreign competition, and subsidies to thrive, while the other part of the country needs very little from the government other than free markets for them to sell their goods. Yet both are united under a single form of government; the control of which is a constant battle between differing interests.

Although slavery was quickly becoming a Southern institution that did not mean the Northerners were not biased and prejudiced towards blacks; far from it. Many Northern cities had introduced laws that were far more prejudiced than what those held in bondage were made to live under in the South. Then, when Alexis de Tocqueville came to study America in the 1983’s he noticed, “…race prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known.”

So, while the idea of owning another human being as a slave may have been abhorrent among many in the North, they certainly weren’t any less racist and prejudiced. So keep that in mind when you begin leveling accusations of racism at those who proudly defend the South and the Confederate Battle Flag.
Moving right along, now there is one thing about government that I think we can all agree upon; that being that for government to operate it needs money – which means taxes of some kind. Prior to 1913 there was no income tax to fund government, (as if our taxes actually fund government today anyway), so most of the revenue generated by government came via tariffs; taxes imposed upon imported and exported goods.

Those tariffs hit the South particularly hard, and they ended up funding a lion’s share of the taxes that funded government. Some say that the South was paying 3/4 of the taxes for the entire operation of the government, yet nary a penny of those taxes were being spent on improvements in the South; it was all being spent to improve canals or build railroads in the North. When the Morrill Tariff was enacted the tariff rate jumped to nearly 45%, strangling the South.

So we have the North getting all the benefits from government, while making the South pay the cost of those benefits, and at the same time the North is refusing to return the property, (slaves), of the South, and seeking to prohibit the expansion of slavery, (which had been declared legal and constitutional by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case), into new States.

The South must have felt like saying, “Why the hell did we ever agree to become subject to this system of government?” Yet this system of government was agreed to by the voice of, not only the Northerners, but by the Southerners as well. It was the people of the States, collectively, that chose to implement this system of government, and it was by their authority that they could resume their status as independent States, free from the authority of the entity they had helped establish. This sentiment was clearly explained by the following, taken from Virginias Declaration of Ratification, “… that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” Virginia was not the only State to make such a statement, both New York and Rhode Island included similar wording in their declarations of ratification.

So what we had was a part of the country whose internal affairs were being taxed and interfered with by another part of the country, while they were getting no relief from the government that was supposed to provide justice for all; not just those who had the largest percentage of representation in Congress. What would you do under such circumstances, where no relief was to be found?

On 24 December 1860 the State of South Carolina decided that it had had enough of this Union and its system of government, and declared that it was seceding from the Union. South Carolina was followed by six other States in pretty rapid succession. This all came about as a new president, Abraham Lincoln, was about to be sworn into office. So this new president was coming into office while the nation was splintering apart before his very eyes.

Once Lincoln was sworn in he sought to reassure the South that he had no intention to interfere with the institution of slavery, saying in his Inaugural Address, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Not only did Lincoln say he had no inclination to interfere with slavery, he also said he supported a proposed constitutional amendment that would make slavery permanent in the United States, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

This amendment he refers to is the Corwin Amendment, which had already been passed by Congress and was on its way to the States for their consideration. The Corwin Amendment states, “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

Not only did Lincoln support the ratification of a constitutional amendment making slavery legal, he himself felt that blacks were inferior to whites. In his 4th debate with Stephen Douglas for the presidency Lincoln stated, “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

So while slavery is/was evil, with all the evidence I have thus far presented to you, how can you say that the South was alone in being racist and prejudiced. In fact, according to de Tocqueville, they were less racist than their brethren to the North, AND the president who took the country to war against itself.

Up until this time all we’d seen is 7 Southern States leave the Union. Although some of these States had mentioned that slavery was among the reasons they chose to secede, slavery was legal under the system of government established in 1789, and upheld by the Supreme Court, so their defense of slavery was both legal and constitution; however immoral it might have been. Yet there was no war – not yet anyway.

So why didn’t Lincoln just let the South go, why did he raise an army to invade them? It certainly had nothing to do with slavery, he said so himself in an 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

But Neal, didn’t Lincoln enact the Emancipation Proclamation? Yes, yes he did; but have you ever read it, or is your knowledge of what it did confined to what your history books told you it did? The Emancipation did not free every person held in bondage in the U.S., only those in the areas where the Union Army had not yet gained a foothold.

Don’t believe me? Read it for yourself, “That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free…”

It does not say anything about freeing any slaves in Pennsylvania, New York, or any of the other Northern States that were waging war against the South. Not only that, but Lincoln knew he had no general authority under peacetime to free any slave; you already read that in his Inaugural Address. The Emancipation was a wartime maneuver to speed along a Northern victory. Don’t believe me again? Well, he says so in the Emancipation Proclamation, “I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion…”

So much for Lincoln’s status as the great emancipator…

On a side note, did you know that Robert E. Lee, (the one who’s monuments are being torn down because they represent racism and prejudice), freed his slaves before the Civil War began? Bet your history books didn’t teach you that; did they. Well here’s another fact those history books may not have taught you; Ulysses S. Grant, (The commander of the Union Army, and the guy who would become the 18th President of the United States) did not free his slaves until he was forced to by the ratification of the 13th Amendment. But oh, the South was all about keeping their slaves…RIGHT!!!

Since I brought up the 13th Amendment, let’s talk about what happened after it was ratified. Do you think that the freed former slaves were just allowed to pick up and move North, to the land of those who had freed them from bondage? Uh, I think I already explained how Alexis de Tocqueville had seen that racial prejudice was much worse in the North than it was in the South, so the Northerners wanted to ensure that those they had just freed from bondage stayed in the South. So to do this they took the land of the big plantation owners, subdivided it, then promised it to the former slaves if they would remain in the South. After all, we couldn’t have expected the high and mighty Northerners to subdivide their land and give the freed slaves a plot to live upon, could we?

While all this was happening they still had to deal with the sudden creation of a huge number of people who had no place to go, and no means to provide a living for themselves; so they sent them to places where the Union Army could keep a watchful eye over them…places like Natchez Mississippi.
Ever hear of the Devil’s Punchbowl; and I’m not referring to a bowl Satan uses to dispense fruity flavored beverages either. The Devil’s Punchbowl can only be described as a concentration camp for freed slaves, but in reality it was hell on Earth.

These freed slaves endured conditions at the Devil’s Punchbowl that were far worse than any they had endured at the hands of their masters in the South, and this was all at the hands of Union Army soldiers.

The Devil’s Punchbowl is/was located in a naturally occurring ravine in a hillside, and the former slaves were herded into it like cattle and then not allowed to leave. Disease and starvation took the lives of thousands, and the Union Army did absolutely nothing to help them. In fact, the former slaves were told that if one of them died, to bury them where they dropped.

Oh but the North cared about the slaves. Caring like that is like someone getting out of federal prison today and being flown to the middle of the Sahara desert and given only a canteen full of water, while being told; “Here, you’re free now…make the best of it.”

But yeah, the Civil War was all about slavery, and you believe that because you saw it in a history book, or because some teacher told you so. Yeah, keep believing that, and while you’re going around believing lies, here’s another one; Jessica Alba is my girlfriend and we have raunchy sex 3 times a day.

I kind of got ahead of myself, but I didn’t want to break my train of thought over the issue of whether the Civil War was fought over slavery or not. So let’s get back on track, shall we?

Like I said, at the beginning, only 7 States chose to secede from the Union, and war had not yet broken out. Then came Lincoln’s call for an army of 75,000 volunteers to suppress the rebellion in the South. Rebellion? What rebellion? The South wasn’t fighting against the North, they had peacefully withdrawn from the Union and only wanted to live peacefully as neighbors to their Northern brethren.

Then Abe Lincoln decided to provoke the South by resupplying Fort Sumter; which happened to be on the sovereign soil of South Carolina. Of course South Carolina would seek to prevent that from happening; who wouldn’t? I mean, if Mexico sent an army to retake or resupply the Alamo we’d treat that as an act of war, and respond accordingly. Well, that’s exactly what South Carolina did, and it gave Lincoln all the justification he needed to send those 75,000 troops into the South; making Lincoln both instigator and aggressor in this war.

In fact, it is because Lincoln raised an army to invade those States that had already seceded that 4 other States chose to secede, saying they would not stand by while the government used force to compel obedience to the will of the federal government. Governor Letcher’s words to Secretary of War Simon Cameron reflect the sentiments of those who chose to join the Confederacy after Lincoln’s request for volunteers to suppress the insurrection in the Cotton States, “Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object — an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 — will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South.”

The question remains, why would Lincoln choose war over a peaceful separation? The answer to that question can be found if one looks at the following statement made in Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley, “The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.”

The key words, or phrases in that are ‘national authority’ and ‘the Union as it was’; meaning a Union where the North plundered the wealth of the South to better its own conditions through oppressive taxation. This was reflected in an editorial published in the New York Evening Post in 1862,” That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.”

I see no mention of slavery in that editorial, only the concern that the taxes that fund government would vanish should the South be allowed to secede. Lincoln had already said, both in his Inaugural Address and in his letter to Horace Greeley that he wasn’t fighting this war over slavery, but to keep the Union together.

Lincoln had this misguided view, (a view that his unfortunately shared by many people today), that government is superior to the will of those from whom government derives its authority – the people. Lincoln believed that, once established, government was superior to the people it governed, and that the majority will could dominate and oppress the minority.

That is supported by the following quote from his Inaugural Address, “Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.”

Lincoln was saying that a system was sovereign over a free people, when the reverse should have been true; the free people were sovereign to the system. He then goes on to say that whoever rejects that belief is an anarchist.

Well, if that be the case then the patriots of 1776 were anarchists as well; for they chose to sever the tied that had bound them to an established form of government rather than to submit to its arbitrary and oppressive authority. It also means that if both the Confederate States of America, and the Colonists who fought for their independence were anarchists, then so am I; for I believe the people have a right to shake off government when it becomes oppressive, that they are the masters over their government, not the other way around.

It doesn’t matter what you think, if you wish to submit to this government of your own free will, then go right ahead. However, if you believe in freedom and liberty, then I should be free to decide for myself whether the system you willingly submit to has any authority and jurisdiction over me.

If you don’t believe that, then you don’t really believe in liberty and freedom. That is why the Confederate Battle Flag does not stand for racism and prejudice; it stands for brave men who fought against a system of government that subjugated and oppressed them, it stands for the same principles that those who fought for America’s independence fought for.

It both saddens and angers me that people will take as gospel what is written or said in some classroom regarding the Civil War, but when someone comes along with well documented facts, those facts are ignored and the person bearing them is called racist and prejudiced – all because they sought to dispel the lies you have been fed by those who pervert and revise our history.

Shame on them, and shame on you for believing their lies…

Deo vindice

The other day I was going to the kitchen and a campaign ad for Mike Bloomberg came on the TV and I stopped to listen to what he had to say. One of the things he supports is tougher gun control laws; a stance shared by most of those running for the Democratic nomination. Then of course there is Donald Trump who is all over the place on the issue of gun control. First he bans bump stocks and says he wants to take our guns first, then give us due process later; in reference to his support for Red Flag Laws, then he says he is considering passing a law making concealed carry reciprocal across all the States.

Many people tell me that they voted for Trump because Hillary was dangerous; that she would have taken America straight down the toilet. Let me tell you something, America is already in the toilet, and we’re circling the drain.

Just because I do not vote does not mean I do not follow the positions of candidates seeking office. One of the candidates on the Republican side who is opposing Trump for the Republican nomination is Joe Walsh, a conservative radio talk show host and former Congressman from the State of Illinois. Walsh has said that Trump is unfit for office, well let me tell you, all of them are unfit for office, but one of them will become the 46th President of the United States.

Can any of these mother fuckers read English? Can any of the American people who believe that government has the authority to enact laws that restrict a fundamental right?

I wonder how many of these morons aligning themselves behind whichever candidate they will ultimately vote for knows the history of the Bill of Rights and what it actually does. From what I’ve heard people say, I’d be willing to bet that the number is very small, so let me enlighten you a bit; and I promise to try and keep it short.

God created man. Now whether you believe in God or don’t believe in God, the fact is that man came into existence; and those of us who do believe in God believe what we came into existence by His will. Now when God created man He gave us two things; freewill and liberty; which is sort of like an umbrella that covers all of our unalienable rights.

These rights are known as Natural Rights, due to the fact that they are naturally occurring as our being human beings and a part of nature. These rights don’t exist because man created government; they exist because God created man. Since these rights are naturally occurring, no man has the right to deny or restrict the exercise of those rights by his fellow human beings.

Now since no man can violate the rights of his fellow human beings, he cannot, therefore, join together with other fellow human beings and create an organization, or group of men and bestow them with the power to violate those rights.

After the Constitution was written an intense debate waged across the country over whether to adopt or reject the proposed plan for a new system of government. There were, of course, those who supported this plan. Then there were those who opposed it unabashedly. Finally, there were those who thought it was a decent plan, but could be made better if a Bill of Rights was included in it to protect certain unalienable rights.

What ended up happening was that the fate of the proposed Constitution was uncertain, and to appease the people of the States who were threatening to vote against its ratification, the supporters of the Constitution, (The Federalists), caved in and promised that if they would adopt the plan, a bill of rights would be added to it.

That’s the nickel version of how we got our Bill of Rights; I still haven’t discussed what the Bill of Rights does though. I’ll try to say this as simple as possible: THE BILL OF RIGHTS DOES NOT GRANT US ANYTHING!!! There, is that simple enough?

Remember now, those rights are naturally occurring; meaning they existed before government came into existence. So how is it that a piece of paper, or government for that matter, can give us something we already were in possession of?

Imagine that those who supported the adoption of a bill of rights were having a conversation with the government they were asking to adopt it; that conversation might go as follows:

Hey fellas, I know we created you to do certain things for the people, and we agree that you have the power to do this, this, and this, BUT, when it comes to passing laws that violate or restrict THESE, rights, that’s a big no no; those rights are off limits. Okay?

The Bill of Rights was a paper lockbox that was supposed to prevent government from doing anything which restricted the ability of the people to fully enjoy the exercise of all the rights listed therein.

Now there is something else you need to fucking realize; that being that although government is an institution created by man, and therefore be amended and altered by man to increase or reduce its powers, one thing remains constant and unchanging; that being that our rights do not come from government, they come from our Creator.

What that entails for you folks lacking in critical thinking skills is, if government should assume, either of its own volition, or due to the will of the people, powers that violate or restrict ANY of our unalienable rights, then government goes against the will of God; that will being that all men fully enjoy the rights and liberty He has bestowed upon them.

As I have explained, these rights are considered Natural Rights, and they have a law of nature to explain them. Locke explains this law of nature as follows, “But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”

Yet we all know that man has a tendency to not obey that law, otherwise if he did we wouldn’t have any crime in the world. Therefore, to protect our lives, our health, our liberty and our possessions there is a law of nature that gives to every man the ability to defend these things against all attacks.

This law of nature was described by Samuel Adams in 1772, (almost 20 years before the bill of rights was added to the Constitution I might add), “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.” (My emphasis)

Now some people might not like guns. Some may not like the fact that other people own guns. But the fact is that guns exist, and they are a part of the world we live in today. Therefore, if guns exist, and there are going to be people who use them to threaten our lives, our liberty, and our property, then it is our right to own the very same type of guns that might be used to threaten, or deny us the right to life, liberty and property.

Now if people would adhere to Natural Law and respect the rights of life, liberty, and property, then there would be no need for defending these things against anyone, and I could possibly see a world in which guns were not needed. But so long as there is a single individual who might threaten those things, each of us has the right to choose the ‘best manner’ we can to defend those rights; up to and including the use of deadly force.

Returning to Locke to explain this, “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.”

The problem today, at least as I see it, is that people have forgotten the concept of individuality, instead believing in the concept of collectivism. Sure, people are individuals; they may dress differently, eat different foods, listen to different kinds of music, and attend different churches, but when it comes to the responsibility for their comfort and security are concerned they are collectivists. To best explain what collectivism is, let me steal a line from the Star Trek movie The Wrath of Khan, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”

Collectivists believe that it is the duty, the responsibility of society to provide the things that, in s state of true liberty, are the responsibility of the individual. For instance, in liberty each of us is responsible for providing for our own shelter, our own sustenance, and our own security. A collectivist, however, believes that if a person cannot provide those things for themselves then the society, (meaning those having the power to enact laws; i.e. government) must do it for them.

In a state of liberty the rights of each individual are secure, but in a state where collectivism is the prevailing sentiment, the rights of an individual can, and should be sacrificed if it serves the overall public good.

Collectivism is the prevailing attitude of most Americans these days; and that is true regardless of whether people call themselves Democrats or Republicans. Republicans are just as guilty of the Democrats of supporting laws, or measures, that restrict or limit the rights of those they disagree with.

For instance, most Republicans consider themselves pro-life; meaning they oppose abortion. While I believe that abortion is murder, it, just as guns, exists, and to deny someone the right to obtain one is to deny their right to make their own choices in life. Yet these same Republicans have no qualms about sending our military into countries that have not attacked the United States, where thousands of innocent people are killed in the defense of all they claim to hold dear.

Can we all say hypocrisy?

Even the Bible, in Luke, Chapter 11, tells of the parable of the armed man, “When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.”

In 1989 Charlie Daniels released his album Simple Man, which contained the hit song A Few More Rednecks. In that song Charlie sings, “Now they’re tryin’ to take my guns away and that would be just fine, if you take ’em away from the criminals first I’ll gladly give you mine.”

Now I don’t wholeheartedly agree with that; the fact that I’d give up my guns if you took them away from the criminals first; for there will always be criminals in society, and nowhere will you find them in greater abundance than in government.

Just think about it, if government is instituted to secure our liberty and preserve our rights; our Natural Rights; God’s gift to all mankind, and if government does one single thing that limits, restricts, or violates those rights, then who is the criminal; those who oppose government, or government itself for passing those laws in the first place? And if government is criminal for passing those laws, then those who uphold and enforce them upon the people are no less criminal; for they too are violating the unalienable rights of those they swear to serve and protect.

An individual who loves liberty will oppose any act that violates their unalienable rights; and it matters not whether those acts are perpetrated by Republicans or Democrats. While I do not agree with the Democrats on 99% of the things they support, I can at least understand them, and I actually admire them for being somewhat honest about who they are, and what they stand for.

The Republicans in this country, on the other hand, earn nothing but contempt from me. The run around calling themselves conservatives, yet they support all manner of laws and agencies that violate the rights of the individual. Oh, you don’t believe me? What about their undying support for the fake War on Terror and all the laws that have been enacted to fight it? What about the Patriot Act that violates no less than 4 of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights?

What about your undying support for our military; which HAS BEEN used to violate our right to keep and bear arms; (see the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina if you don’t believe me)? What about your undying support for our military when they have been used as pawns to impose the will of our government upon people who have never harmed the U.S.; or to gain control of the natural resources that country possesses?

You Republicans, especially those who support Trump, make me sick. You claim to love and defend your right to keep and bear arms, but you still support your guy after he banned bump stocks and said that he believes the guns should be taken first and then due process later.

Fuck you, fuck you all!

If you right to keep and bear arms was a block of cheese, every law that has been passed, and every law that will be passed, is a bite out of that block of cheese; and one day you will wake up and all that cheese will be gone, and you’ll sit there wondering where it all went.

Like it or not America, guns exist, and the criminals in this country are not going to obey any law that says they can’t own, and use those guns against their victims. And you know something else; government is the absolute biggest and most powerful criminal organization in America; and they have no qualms about using guns to impose their will upon their victims; the American people.

So, as long as government exists, and it’s agents are armed, I’m going to keep my guns to defend myself against them. And if you don’t like that, tough shit! So you collectivists, both on the right and left side of the fence can go eat cow dung, for you don’t know the first thing about what rights are, where they come from, and how the Bill of Rights places restrictions upon your precious government from enacting any law that violates them.

And just to prove that I’m right about this and you’re wrong, here are a few assorted quotes to back up my position. I’m more than willing to debate anyone who disagrees with me, so long as your argument does not consist of ‘think about the children’, for I do think about the children, and my thought is that their best defense is an armed populace who can shoot dead anyone that threatens them; as Ted Nugent said, “I don’t like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders.”

So here are those quotes I promised. I’ll meet you at the debate table anytime you’re prepared to argue this issue with me, but until you come prepared with facts of your own to back up your position I politely ask you to LEAVE MY RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS ALONE!!!

-“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” (Cockrum v. State, 1859)

-“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” (Nunn vs. State, 1846)

-“For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” (Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 1822)

-“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” (Wilson v. State, 1878)

And finally, a quote from former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story which explains WHY we have a 2nd Amendment, protecting our right to keep and bear arms. And let me give you a hint, it says nothing about hunting deer…

-“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” (Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833)

So like I said, if you support any measure that in any way, limits, restricts, or denies my right to keep and bear arms, you can go eat dung; and if you try to take them from me let’s hope you’re willing to die trying, (but please, come in person and try, but don’t send the cops to do your dirty work for you), because I’m willing to die to keep them – are you willing to die trying to take them from me?

Government and liberty cannot exist peacefully side by side; it’s that simple. As long as both exist one will pose a threat to the other. It’s kind of like fire and water; if fire and water mix either the water will put out the fire, or the fire will evaporate the water. That’s why Thomas Paine wrote the following all those years ago, “…Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one…”

If government is to be good, to be just; that is provide justice, then government must be kept as small as possible, for the more government grows in power, the more the liberty of the governed diminishes. It is best explained by the principle of a simple child’s toy; the seesaw. On a seesaw, if one side rises the other side lowers. Now if liberty is on one side and government on the other, if government gains more power, liberty goes down. But, if liberty increases, then the power given government is kept at a minimum.

The problem is that government cannot, or will not limit itself to the few powers delegated to it. The lust for power is something that draws the power hungry to government, and once there they always, and I mean ALWAYS seek to expand their power.

Voting new faces into government does absolutely nothing to diminish this fact, for it is the power hungry who seek office, and only those loyal to the party platforms of the two political parties make it past the screening process and get the funding and support required to get elected.

Our system is a self-perpetuating scam in which carefully vetted candidates are presented to the people; giving the people the illusion of choice in what their government does. But in reality it is simply a rotation of people in and out of office whose loyalty is to the SYSTEM, not those who elect them.

There is another thing people may have failed to give any serious thought to; both liberty and government rely upon coercion and force upon each other to exist. Now that may not make much sense, so let me explain.

If liberty is about living your life free from restraint so long as you do not interfere with anyone else’s ability to do the same, and government is about control; about limiting liberty, then there must be some form of coercion or force exercised against one or the other for one side to exist at its fullest potential.

For instance, government can put whatever words they want on a piece of paper and call it A LAW, but without some means of enforcing that law then the people could easily say, “Hell no, I’m not gonna obey that law.” So, law enforcers are the means by which government exerts its control over the people; makes them obey the laws it writes.

If a law defends our rights, defends our liberty, then that law is just. But, if a law restricts our rights, or limits our liberty, then that law, and those who enforce it, are tyrants; and some means of force must exist for liberty to prevail.

Our founding document, the Constitution, provides no means by which we the people can exert any force against those who write, and those who enforce tyrannical laws upon the people…NONE AT ALL. Voting them out of office does nothing; as a new crop of STATISTS replace them.

That force must come from the people, and it must come in two ways. First the people must recognize that their system of government is not just; it does not serve the purpose for which all governments are instituted among men; the preservation of their liberty.

Then, once the people recognize that simple fact, they must stop participating in the system that only perpetuates itself when they vote for new STATISTS to take the place of ones they aren’t happy with. That is the first step.

The second step is much harder, and it is probably why we will never see liberty again in this country. The second step is, the people must rise up as a united front and resist both those who write the laws, and those who enforce them.

That means getting off your fat asses, turning off your TV’s, and risking your life to defend what is rightfully yours; your liberty. The essence of that is summed up in 7 simple words spoken by Patrick Henry in 1775, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Government does not grant you your rights or your liberty; those are gifts from your Creator. Government does, on the other hand, take those things from you; and once taken government will not return them unless it is met with overwhelming force.

For liberty to prevail 3 things must exist. First, the people must know what liberty is, and it’s not comfort and security. Second, they must know that government is an all consuming beast that destroys liberty. Thirdly, they must have the courage to stand up and defend that liberty against all who would threaten it; be it the government, the police, or a misguided and ignorant populace.

The first step, however is knowledge; and my knowledge I don’t mean what you hear on the news or read on some internet blog. Knowledge is the acquisition of facts; straight from the horse’s mouth. Ignorance is merely the absence of knowledge, much as darkness is merely the absence of light. In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote, “…if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be…”

Liberty depends upon you to defend and protect it, and you cannot do that by supporting the very SYSTEM that is denying you that liberty. You must make a choice, seek out and defend liberty, or admit that you are a slave; and this goes for those who support the SYSTEM, and those who don’t care; those whose time is spent playing video games, watching football, or doing anything but expanding their knowledge and defending their liberty.

Government is a power hungry beast and it must be kept penned up by the will of the governed for liberty to prevail. Well government has broken free of its pen and is running amok; trampling upon your rights and your liberty, and the American people are either so apathetic that they don’t care, or they are so caught up in the hoopla of the two party system and the election of a new president to care; all they care about is that their guy/gal gets elected.

All I have to say about this is, if liberty is a gift from our God to each of us, how are you going to explain yourself to Him when He asks you why you let liberty slip through your fingers without putting up a fight?

Every so often I will go somewhere and someone will see the tattoo on my right arm and scowl at me, or say some derogatory comment about it. When they do that it doesn’t bother me, at least not personally; I can take pretty much any shit that someone heaps upon me. What bothers me is the fact that they believe the lie that the Confederate Battle Flag represents prejudice and racism, and that the Civil War was fought over slavery.

Far too many people in this country allow their ideas to be formed by watching some documentary, listening to some instructor, or by reading some book about whatever subject that interests them regarding a historical event.

Know this: If you base your opinions on a subject based upon any of those things, you are basing your opinions upon the opinions of somebody else, not upon the facts; and that includes if you base your opinions upon what I say or write. The only way, and I mean ONLY way that you can be sure that your opinions stand on solid ground is if you have done your research; read the source documents and look at the actions taken by the participants of a particular event.

That is why I can tell you, without any doubt, the Civil War was not fought over the issue of whether to end or preserve slavery in America, and therefore, the Confederate Battle Flag does not represent slavery and prejudice. Now the interference in the expansion of slavery into new states, and the refusal of some in the North to return escaped slaves to their masters may have been a factor in the decision of some of the Southern States to secede, but it WAS NOT why the war was fought.

To understand why I say this one must take a thorough look at slavery itself; and not its moral implications. Listen, I think slavery of any kind is evil; which is why I oppose our government, because it enslaves each and every one of us regardless of the fact that we get to vote for our masters.

Slavery in America was not limited to the 13 British Colonies, it was practiced by the French and Spanish Colonists as well. For instance, going back to 1632 the French began the practice of slave labor in the territories they inhabited in the New World. Slavery in the British Colonies dates back to the establishment of Jamestown, the first British Colony in America. I’m not justifying it, just saying it had been around a long time before the Civil War was fought.

When the British Colonies began considering independence the Second Continental Congress appointed a Committee of Five to draft a declaration stating America’s intent to separate from Great Britain. Thomas Jefferson was chosen to be the primary author of this document. In Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence Jefferson decried the institution of slavery, and laid the blame for it at the feet of the King of England. Yet Jefferson’s words were too harsh for the Committee of Five, and they removed that wording from the final draft.

You may, or may not have known something, but I’d bet there is something you did not know; that of Committee of Five Jefferson was the only Southerner; the remaining members were all from the North. Those members were, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman. So here we have an instance where a Southerner is decrying the evil of slavery, while we have five Northerners saying, “Damn Jefferson, you can’t say shit like that.”

In any case slavery existed at the time of our Revolution, and later, when the Constitution was being written. In fact, it was a Northern Colony, Massachusetts, that became the first Colony to pass legislation legalizing the owning of slaves. This happened when Massachusetts passed its Body of Liberties in 1641. In fact, at that time Massachusetts was the leading importer of slaves into the Colonies; but that would change over time as tiny Rhode Island soon took over 90% of the slave trade for all 13 Colonies. If you’ll notice, both are Northern States.

Then along comes James Madison and his gang of scoundrels and shysters, who gathered together in the city of Philadelphia to undermine and overthrow the Confederacy established during the American Revolution. Now these crooks had the perfect opportunity to do what was right and introduce wording into their proposed system of government that would have abolished slavery if this new system of government they were proposing were to be accepted. Instead, they chose to not place such wording in their document because it would make ratifying it much harder in the South where slavery was necessary for the Southern economy.

Now I need to divert from my intended subject for a moment to explain something. The Southern economy was primarily agricultural and there were many large scale plantations, (farms if you will) that required a large labor force to maintain. Again, I’m not justifying slavery, just explaining the facts of the situation. So now these large plantation owners had a choice; either purchase slaves, or hire white workers to work their fields and harvest their crops.

White workers could quit at any time, and imposed a heavy burden upon the owners of these plantations; meaning their profits would not be very good if they had to pay their labor force a steady wage. Slaves, on the other hand, required a one-time fee for their purchase, and after that all they required was food and shelter to maintain. So slave labor was more cost effective for them; which is why so many slaves worked in the South in the fields. Having made that purchase, those slaves became their property, (as evil as that idea may be), so when one of those slaves escaped it is logical to think that the owner would want his property returned to him; which some in the North were increasingly unwilling to do. This meant that the farmers had to manage their farms with one less worker, or go out and buy another.

As evil as slavery is, I would like for you to consider the subject of illegal immigration for a moment. Many of these illegal immigrants work the fields harvesting the produce you find on the shelves in your supermarket. Being here illegally means that the farmers can pay them far less than what they would have to pay white workers under our labor laws; not to mention they don’t require any of the other impositions, such as workman’s compensation insurance.

I wonder, among all those who decry the influx of illegal aliens into this country, how would they feel if illegal immigration just stopped and white folks had to work the fields and do the backbreaking work these illegal aliens currently do? I also wonder, how would most Americans feel if they went to the supermarket and saw a 150 – 200% increase in the cost of their produce after the farmers had to start paying a ‘living’ wage, plus all the government required programs like workers comp?

So yeah, slavery was evil, but I sure haven’t read of any massive migration of Northern workers who wanted to move South and pick cotton or harvest tobacco. Those plantation owners had farms to manage, and unless white folks were willing to do the backbreaking work to maintain them, they needed a slave labor force.

Another thing was, the Northern textile mills required the cotton they produced to make the wool they sold and used to make garments. So the North wasn’t particularly interested in introducing wording into any proposed plan for a system of government that might cause their textile mills to shut down, or lose the one commodity they depended upon to dry up; not to mention all the profits being made by Northern ship owners off the importation and sale of those slaves.

So the North was just as much to blame for the institution of slavery as those who used those slaves as a labor force. If we’re gonna be truthful, we gotta accept the facts regardless of who those facts make look bad.

So when the proposed Constitution was being argued behind closed doors in Philadelphia, it was decided not to introduce wording which would abolish slavery. What was argued over was whether slaves would count towards representation in the lower house of Congress. This was a key argument that almost led to the dissolution of the convention and was settled when the 3/5’s clause was introduced; meaning slaves would count as 3/5’s a person when doing the census and determining representation in the House of Representatives.

At the time the South was not very densely populated, while the North was with large business, banking and industrial centers. So population was essential for the South to ensure that their interests were not ignored by the passage of laws in Congress. This was why such heated debates took place after the Constitution went into effect, for if new States were allowed into the Union which were not slave holding States, the Northern States could dominate Congress and subjugate and oppress the South.

You see, if we’re going to have a thorough discussion of the Civil War we have to look at the climate, the circumstances, and the differing interests of the two regions of the country; that is if we are to be honest about it. We can’t look at it from the narrow perspective of whether slavery is/was evil; for that limits your understanding of the whole story behind the Civil War.

So here we have a country that is divided yet united; meaning one segment of the country is primarily business and industry, while the other is primarily agricultural. The part that is business and industry related requires government protection against foreign competition, and subsidies to thrive, while the other part of the country needs very little from the government other than free markets for them to sell their goods. Yet both are united under a single form of government; the control of which is a constant battle between differing interests.

Although slavery was quickly becoming a Southern institution that did not mean the Northerners were not biased and prejudiced towards blacks; far from it. Many Northern cities had introduced laws that were far more prejudiced than what those held in bondage were made to live under in the South. Then, when Alexis de Tocqueville came to study America in the 1983’s he noticed, “…race prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known.”

So, while the idea of owning another human being as a slave may have been abhorrent among many in the North, they certainly weren’t any less racist and prejudiced. So keep that in mind when you begin leveling accusations of racism at those who proudly defend the South and the Confederate Battle Flag.
Moving right along, now there is one thing about government that I think we can all agree upon; that being that for government to operate it needs money – which means taxes of some kind. Prior to 1913 there was no income tax to fund government, (as if our taxes actually fund government today anyway), so most of the revenue generated by government came via tariffs; taxes imposed upon imported and exported goods.

Those tariffs hit the South particularly hard, and they ended up funding a lion’s share of the taxes that funded government. Some say that the South was paying 3/4 of the taxes for the entire operation of the government, yet nary a penny of those taxes were being spent on improvements in the South; it was all being spent to improve canals or build railroads in the North. When the Morrill Tariff was enacted the tariff rate jumped to nearly 45%, strangling the South.

So we have the North getting all the benefits from government, while making the South pay the cost of those benefits, and at the same time the North is refusing to return the property, (slaves), of the South, and seeking to prohibit the expansion of slavery, (which had been declared legal and constitutional by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case), into new States.

The South must have felt like saying, “Why the hell did we ever agree to become subject to this system of government?” Yet this system of government was agreed to by the voice of, not only the Northerners, but by the Southerners as well. It was the people of the States, collectively, that chose to implement this system of government, and it was by their authority that they could resume their status as independent States, free from the authority of the entity they had helped establish. This sentiment was clearly explained by the following, taken from Virginias Declaration of Ratification, “… that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” Virginia was not the only State to make such a statement, both New York and Rhode Island included similar wording in their declarations of ratification.

So what we had was a part of the country whose internal affairs were being taxed and interfered with by another part of the country, while they were getting no relief from the government that was supposed to provide justice for all; not just those who had the largest percentage of representation in Congress. What would you do under such circumstances, where no relief was to be found?

On 24 December 1860 the State of South Carolina decided that it had had enough of this Union and its system of government, and declared that it was seceding from the Union. South Carolina was followed by six other States in pretty rapid succession. This all came about as a new president, Abraham Lincoln, was about to be sworn into office. So this new president was coming into office while the nation was splintering apart before his very eyes.

Once Lincoln was sworn in he sought to reassure the South that he had no intention to interfere with the institution of slavery, saying in his Inaugural Address, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Not only did Lincoln say he had no inclination to interfere with slavery, he also said he supported a proposed constitutional amendment that would make slavery permanent in the United States, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

This amendment he refers to is the Corwin Amendment, which had already been passed by Congress and was on its way to the States for their consideration. The Corwin Amendment states, “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

Not only did Lincoln support the ratification of a constitutional amendment making slavery legal, he himself felt that blacks were inferior to whites. In his 4th debate with Stephen Douglas for the presidency Lincoln stated, “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

So while slavery is/was evil, with all the evidence I have thus far presented to you, how can you say that the South was alone in being racist and prejudiced. In fact, according to de Tocqueville, they were less racist than their brethren to the North, AND the president who took the country to war against itself.

Up until this time all we’d seen is 7 Southern States leave the Union. Although some of these States had mentioned that slavery was among the reasons they chose to secede, slavery was legal under the system of government established in 1789, and upheld by the Supreme Court, so their defense of slavery was both legal and constitution; however immoral it might have been. Yet there was no war – not yet anyway.

So why didn’t Lincoln just let the South go, why did he raise an army to invade them? It certainly had nothing to do with slavery, he said so himself in an 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

In fact, it is because Lincoln raised an army to invade those States that had already seceded that 4 other States chose to secede, saying they would not stand by while the government used force to compel obedience to the will of the federal government. Governor Letcher’s words to Secretary of War Simon Cameron reflect the sentiments of those who chose to join the Confederacy after Lincoln’s request for volunteers to suppress the insurrection in the Cotton States, “Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object — an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 — will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South.”

The question remains, why would Lincoln choose war over a peaceful separation? The answer to that question can be found if one looks at the following statement made in Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley, “The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.”

The key words, or phrases in that are ‘national authority’ and ‘the Union as it was’; meaning a Union where the North plundered the wealth of the South to better its own conditions through oppressive taxation. This was reflected in an editorial published in the New York Evening Post in 1862,” That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.”

I see no mention of slavery in that editorial, only the concern that the taxes that fund government would vanish should the South be allowed to secede. Lincoln had already said, both in his Inaugural Address and in his letter to Horace Greeley that he wasn’t fighting this war over slavery, but to keep the Union together.

Lincoln had this misguided view, (a view that his unfortunately shared by many people today), that government is superior to the will of those from whom government derives its authority – the people. Lincoln believed that, once established, government was superior to the people it governed, and that the majority will could dominate and oppress the minority.

That is supported by the following quote from his Inaugural Address, “Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.”

Lincoln was saying that a system was sovereign over a free people, when the reverse should have been true; the free people were sovereign to the system. He then goes on to say that whoever rejects that belief is an anarchist.

Well, if that be the case then the patriots of 1776 were anarchists as well; for they chose to sever the tied that had bound them to an established form of government rather than to submit to its arbitrary and oppressive authority. It also means that if both the Confederate States of America, and the Colonists who fought for their independence were anarchists, then so am I; for I believe the people have a right to shake off government when it becomes oppressive, that they are the masters over their government, not the other way around.

It doesn’t matter what you think, if you wish to submit to this government of your own free will, then go right ahead. However, if you believe in freedom and liberty, then I should be free to decide for myself whether the system you willingly submit to has any authority and jurisdiction over me.

If you don’t believe that, then you don’t really believe in liberty and freedom. That is why the Confederate Battle Flag does not stand for racism and prejudice; it stands for brave men who fought against a system of government that subjugated and oppressed them, it stands for the same principles that those who fought for America’s independence fought for.

And if you oppose what the Confederate Battle Flag stands for, then you obviously support tyranny and oppression…and to hell with you!

Deo vindice…

I don’t know the exact number, somewhere around 16 or 17, but that is how many States have enacted some form of Red Flag Laws, and now I see that Virginia; the home of patriots like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, is discussing it in the State Legislature. It has upset many in that State, and recently over 1,000 people showed up to protest against such a measure being adopted by their State. Is an uprising, a revolution in the making? Only time will tell, but revolution is not why I’m here today.

One thing government is, and this goes for both State and federal, it is that it is filled with a bunch of sneaky little conniving cocksuckers; and sorry for the language. The government won’t tell you that their ultimate goal is a total ban on the private ownership of guns, but that’s what it is. They know if they said that publicly they would face such a backlash that every one of them would be voted out of office in the next election.

So, what they do is pass these little laws, banning this category of weapon, this type magazine, or prohibiting the owning of guns by those who MIGHT pose a threat, (Red Flag Laws). What we are witnessing is the death of the 2nd Amendment by a thousand little cuts…which is exactly what those cocksuckers want.

Not only do I oppose these Red Flag laws because they are just another infringement upon a right that’s not supposed to be infringed upon, it is also because it violated the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty. The only justifiable way that a person’s rights may be restricted, or taken away, is if that person is found guilty of committing a crime; and for a crime to have been committed there must be a victim.

When it comes to our unalienable rights government cannot pass a law that denies a person the full exercise of them unless that person has been found guilty of exercising those rights in such a manner as to bring harm to others, or deny anyone else the full exercise of their rights. Laws saying someone, according to rumor or innuendo, such as these Red Flag laws, say that a person’s rights can be denied them based upon hearsay and the possibility that they MIGHT commit a crime.

Well if that’s the case we need to immediately pass a law banning government; for government is far guiltier of committing crimes than is the average citizen who owns guns!

I know most people in this country haven’t given much thought to what these Red Flag laws mean, or the underlying principle they are based upon; but I have. Most people are unable to see past their fear of becoming a victim; having been brainwashed by the media to fear guns, and those who own them. They see these stories on the news about these mass shootings and all they can do is call upon their government to do something to stop them before they, or their loved ones, become a victim.

Listen, I’m all for nobody becoming a victim of any crime, be it a robbery, rape, or a mass shooting. I just think we’re going about finding a solution the wrong way; which leads us to that underlying principle I just spoke of.

Today people, taken en masse, have this misguided concept that society is to blame for all the ills that plague us, and that society must be kept in check by some form of authority; i.e. government and law enforcement; and if that means sacrificing the rights of all the people, then so be it.

That goes against the concept of individuality; which is at the very core of liberty. If one truly understood what liberty was they would know that, in liberty, each of us is pretty much free to do as we please so long as we do not bring harm to, or take from others. However, liberty also means that the individual is responsible, and punishable only for their own actions.

This whole concept that society must be punished; have their rights taken away; or is responsible for all the evils in this country is diametrically opposed to the concept of individuality and individual liberty.

Yet that concept seems to be widely accepted; tolerated even, among the people living in America today. It is what has justified the slow, but steady encroachments upon our right to keep and bear arms; it is what has justified the constant spying upon each and every one of us just to weed out a few possible terrorists among us, and it is what has justified the government confiscating the wealth of all, just so it can hand it out to those society deems are more deserving of it.

It all boils down to whether each of us feels responsible for the general welfare, safety, comfort, and security of the conglomerate society, or if we feel responsible only for ourselves. I am not saying that we, as individuals, cannot volunteer and work towards the betterment of society; that’s all well and good and all people should be willing to do so if they are charitable and true followers of the teachings of Christ. What I am saying is that we shouldn’t require, or depend upon an outside force, (government), to do that for us, or mandate our participation in things which should remain voluntary.

If you believe that the needs/wants of society overrule the rights or liberty of one single individual, then you don’t understand what principles this country was established upon and you are a Statist. It doesn’t matter if you call yourself a Democrat or a Republican, if you believe that government should have the coercive power to impose laws that violate the rights of a single individual, or group of individuals, who you happen to disagree with, then you DO NOT understand liberty and you are either a Statist or a tyrant; take your pick.

People have either forgotten, or haven’t been taught what sovereignty is, and who it belongs to in this country. People believe that they elect these individuals into positions of power, and once there those individuals have an almost unlimited authority to what they feel is in their best interests; even at the cost of surrendering their rights and liberty. In short, they believe they are electing masters to rule over them.
That simply isn’t how it is supposed to work!

We; you, me, the person who delivers your mail, the person who works on your car, and the people living on either side of you, are the true masters of our government; the sovereigns. Our government derives its authority from us; is responsible and answerable to us, and it’s power is limited to certain specific functions.

Sovereignty is defined as the supreme, or absolute political power in a society. Guess what; in America that sovereignty does not belong to the government, it belongs to us. In 1793 the Supreme Court handed down their decision in the landmark case of Chisholm v. Georgia, saying, “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”

Do you understand that; I mean REALLY understand it? What it basically says is that I am a king, but I am also the only subject of my own little kingdom. It also says that you are either a king or a queen of your own kingdom, but you are the only subject of your kingdom. I cannot impose my will upon you, or violate your rights, and you cannot impose your will upon me and violate my rights. And if we, as individuals cannot do that to each other, we cannot establish a collective force, (government), which has the authority to do it for us.

I was told the other day, and I’m not condemning the person who told me, that the word society is nebulous and unscientific. Society, at least to me, is merely the joining together of individuals into groups for the better protection of their rights and property.

Many an esteemed political writer has written about these societies; such as when Frederic Bastiat writes, “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.”

John Locke went into even greater detail on the various forms of society. Locke begins by describing conjugal society; the union between man and woman, “Conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman; and tho’ it consist chiefly in such a communion and right in one another’s bodies as is necessary to its chief end, procreation; yet it draws with it mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too, as necessary not only to unite their care and affection, but also necessary to their common off-spring, who have a right to be nourished, and maintained by them, till they are able to provide for themselves.”

Then Locke goes on to describe both civil and political societies, “Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them, and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another: but those who have no such common appeal, I mean on earth, are still in the state of nature, each being, where there is no other, judge for himself, and executioner; which is, as I have before shewed it, the perfect state of nature.

And thus the common-wealth comes by a power to set down what punishment shall belong to the several transgressions which they think worthy of it, committed amongst the members of that society, (which is the power of making laws) as well as it has the power to punish any injury done unto any of its members, by any one that is not of it, (which is the power of war and peace;) and all this for the preservation of the property of all the members of that society, as far as is possible.”

Yet in all these instances each of us remains sovereign, and each of us have a right to exit the society we have voluntarily entered into. Divorce is one such dissolution of the conjugal society; when one party to that society deems that their remaining in that union is no longer in their best interests they may choose to sever the bonds tying man and woman together.

The American Revolution was a dissolution of the political society that had bound the Colonies under British rule, and so was the Civil War for that matter; a right that Abraham Lincoln denied when he invaded the South; regardless of the reasons the South chose to secede.

That right to dissolve the political bonds which hold us to any society was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, where Thomas Jefferson writes, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, [the preservation of our right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

Locke went into even greater detail, saying, “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…”

And that’s where all the problems in America arise; the people willingly submit to a system that deprives them of the very things it was supposedly instituted to preserve, then demand that those who want to regain their rights and liberty remain subject to its power and jurisdiction. If people had one ounce of respect for liberty, and the slightest understanding of what sovereignty is, they’d realize they seek to impose servitude upon others; to subjugate them and place them under the control of a system that uses its coercive power to impose THEIR WILL upon all those who disagree with their political beliefs.

And if you ask me, that is slavery; which according to the constitution was made illegal.

But ignorance is bliss, and as long as the people are given goodies, kept safe, fat, dumb and happy, these things are of little concern to them. So they are willing to tolerate laws that violate their rights, they are willing to see laws passed that violate the rights of those they disagree with. Besides, if the other party gets in control, there’s always the next election which gives them the opportunity to vote the ‘bad guys’ out and replace them with ‘bad guys’ of their own choosing – and the cycle goes on and on and on; while liberty continues to circle the drain.

Meanwhile the government sits behind closed doors and laughs at all the ignorant voters who think that their vote is going to change anything other than who gets to sit at the big table and make new laws, when the truth is that regardless of who sits in power government never really changes. Nobody, no matter which side gets control of government, will abolish the DEA, the BATF, the FDA, the TSA, the NSA, the CIA, and all the other agencies which dictate all these rules and regulations that restrict our rights and liberty and engage in all manner of unconstitutional laws.
So what difference do your votes really make; which tyrants get to run the SYSTEM?

And, if you ask me, that is a sad commentary on the people of this country, and one I hope will be recorded well in the history books to come…

I hate labels, I really do. I hate it when people say I’m a conservative, a libertarian, or anything else derogatory they might come up with. I’m just me; Neal H. Ross, an individual. I don’t belong to any group or category of people. However, if you wish to attach a label to me, I suggest you call me what I am, an anarchist.

I think people get the wrong impression when one says the word anarchy; I think they envision a state of complete lawlessness-chaos; kind of like those Purge films where one day out of the year people are free to commit whatever crimes they want. But even in the Purge movies, those in power, (i.e. government), were shielded from the actions of the ordinary citizens. Had it been complete freedom to do as they please they’d most likely become the first targets of people’s anger and aggression…but I divert from my intended topic; and I promised not to.

Anarchy is defined as: a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. I don’t necessarily accept that definition; I think it is flawed. To understand why I say that you have to understand the purpose authority is supposed to serve, where it comes from, and the purpose laws are supposed to be written for; along with the power to enforce those laws. If you can’t understand that, then anarchy might certainly appear to be a state of disorder, or lawlessness.

If you believe that anarchy is lawlessness, chaos, then think about something Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1819, “…law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” Notice that Jefferson didn’t say certain groups of people, or society in general; he specified the individual. So the law, according to Jefferson, should serve to safeguard and protect the rights of each and every individual; and not punish some for the actions of others.

Therefore, our lawmakers, or government if you will, either serves that purpose or it doesn’t; it either preserves liberty or denies it. There is no middle ground on this, regardless of which political party is in control of government; either government secures our liberty or it seeks to limit it; and it is all but a matter of degrees depending upon which party is in power.

It all boils down to the purpose the voters think government is supposed to serve. If people think that government is supposed to do WHATEVER is necessary to provide for their needs, their safety, their comfort then government will have to violate the rights of others to accomplish those goals. If, on the other hand, you think that the law should only punish those who violate the rights others, then you’re coming dangerously close to anarchism.

That is why I use this quote often, as it best describes the reason governments are supposed to be instituted among men, “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.”

People talk about their civil rights all the time, but did they know that those civil rights are derived from their Natural Rights? Thomas Paine believed they were, stating, “Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural rights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and to show how the one originates from the other. Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights.”

The power that is given to government to act on our behalf derives its authority from our power, or sovereignty, as individuals; and our freedom, or liberty, is given to us by God. We cannot give to government any more power than we each held as an individual; meaning if we cannot violate the right to life, liberty, or property of others, we cannot bestow that power upon any form of government without violating Natural Law; for no man can subject others to bondage and servitude to any system without violating the rights of those that system subjugates.

If you believe that government is the only entity that has the right to become both the lawmaker, and the enforcer of justice, then yes, anarchy is lawlessness. But, if you believe there is a higher power, and that our rights and liberty are derived from that higher power, then any system that denies those rights, that liberty, is, in fact, in violation of that higher power.

Prior to the constitution, for that’s when it all started to go to shit, many, if not all of the people living in America believed that their rights and liberty were derived from their Natural Rights, or their rights under a State of Nature.

That is why Samuel Adams wrote the following in 1771, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”

Adams didn’t say the first law of government, he said the first Law of Nature, referring to Natural Law. But then Adams goes on to say, “All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please: And in case of intollerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another.”

No man can be forced to accept a system that denies their unalienable rights, or restricts their liberty without admitting that you are imposing bondage and servitude upon them. And, as Adams said, if such a system exists it is the right of ALL MEN to leave that society, be it religious, or civil, and enter into another to regain their rights and liberty.

Yet people today deny that right, saying we must stick together as a Union because without government to protect and provide for us there would be lawlessness; chaos. People cling to this system because they have been taught that there is no alternative. That’s simply not true, there is an alternative, and it is in anarchism.

To understand that concept you have to accept that there is a higher power than government, or the individual for that matter. That higher power, (and for most people it is God), is the bestower of all our rights and our liberty. If you don’t believe me just read the Declaration of Independence where it says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Therefore, to defend those rights, that liberty, is to be in accordance with the will of that Creator, i.e. God. As Jefferson also said, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God?”

If you believe that your rights and liberty are given to you by government, and can therefore be limited or restricted by government, then you are denying the belief that those rights and that liberty comes from God. It’s that simple. And if you believe that, then you are placing your rights and liberty into the hands of men, and men are susceptible to all manner of evil and vices. I’d much rather place the security of my rights, my liberty, into the hands of the person who has my best interests in mind…ME! As much as I trust some of my friends, I still believe the person best suited to, and qualified to defend my rights is me. To deny that is to deny Natural Law, for under Natural Law each man is judge jury and executioner when it comes to infringements upon their rights and property.

If government would adhere to the Jeffersonian belief of, “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government” then maybe I could tolerate living in a world where there is government. Unfortunately government does not limit itself to those few purposes, and therefore government has become tyrannical and oppressive; denying me my God-given gift of liberty and my unalienable rights.

Must I submit to the authority of a system that does not serve the purpose for which we were promised it would serve, or are we free to remove ourselves from the authority of that system and return to a status of being governed by Natural Law only? That is what anarchy, at least according to how I understand it, is.

Anarchy is not the freedom to do as one pleases; even if it violates the rights of others. Anarchy is a state of perfect rightful liberty where all men enjoy liberty, while at the same time respecting the rights of their fellow man. Jefferson defined it as follows, “Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” If such a state existed there would be no need for government, for all men would treat each other as they expected others to treat them. In a state of perfect rightful liberty there wouldn’t be chaos, there would be peace, for there would be no greed, no envy; each man would be content to seek their fortune according to their own wit and skill, and they would not seek to take from others that which was not rightfully theirs.

How could that be considered chaos?

Anarchism is the perfection of liberty, at least that’s how I see it. Yet people fear it because it imposes a heavy burden upon each and every one of us. If anarchy were to exist in America each person could not demand that some entity, such as government, provide for their comfort, their needs, and their security; for that would be THEIR responsibility.

In a perfect state of anarchy people would not be punished for protecting or defending their lives, their property, or their rights; only those who violated, or infringed upon those things would be punished.

Anarchy is about defending the rights and liberty of the individual, while its counterpart, Statism, is a collective concept where an entity, such as government, is responsible for determining the extent to which people can exercise their Creator given rights to life, liberty and property. In one you have a system that is in accordance to Natural Law, and in the other you have a system that violates Natural Law and replaces it with laws made by men.

Therefore, if you support a system in which laws come from men, and not the State of Nature, i.e. our Creator, then you are in opposition to the will of that Creator; meaning the other guy – the devil.

And if you refuse to accept that, then I pray for your soul when the day of judgment comes and you’re asked why you did not defend to your last breath God’s gift of liberty against any and all who would take it from you.

In 1975 the San Francisco rock group The Tubes released their debut album; which included the song, What Do You Want From Life; a satirical look at what people expect out of life. I’m 61 years old now and in a way I haven’t aged a minute from back when I graduated from high school back in 1976; because I still don’t really know what I want from life.

Sure, there are things I’d like to do; like shoot a .50 caliber sniper rifle at a target about 1,500 yards out…and hit it; there are places I’d like to see; the battlefield at Gettysburg being one of them; but as far as what I want to achieve in life, I still have no clue.

I have a wonderful family, a home I can call my own, (at least as close as I can call my own without allodial titleship that is), a job that pays the bills and allows me to live from day to day without wondering how I’m gonna provide for my family. But as far as what I want to achieve personally, I still have no friggin’ idea.

I can, however, tell you what I don’t want; I don’t want to be the leader of any group, or movement. I never sought out any positions such as class president in high school, and I absolutely hated being promoted to NCO status in the military – Non Commissioned Officer for all you civilian types out there. Don’t get me wrong, I love my son, but being a parent was the scariest thing I’ve ever done in my life; for I hated/feared having all that responsibility for someone else.

Maybe it is because, due to the twists and turns life threw my way, I grew up pretty much a loner; only depending upon myself, and at the same time being responsible only for myself. That could very well be the reason I hate training new people at work, even though I’m told I’m one of the best workers in the plant, coming in 2nd place behind my wife. It’s quite possible I hate/fear being responsible for teaching people things; people who are too ignorant or stupid to learn.

So when someone tells me that I ought to write about this, write about that; lead my readers towards liberty, it scares the shit out of me! I do love writing and sharing the knowledge that I’ve been fortunate enough to acquire; but make no mistake about it, I AM NO LEADER!

In fact, I’m closer to Heath Leger’s Joker in the Christopher Nolan film The Dark Knight; I’m an agent of chaos who writes these rants just to see how people react…but I’M NO LEADER. Uh um, nope, no thanks, don’t want the position; give it to someone else, thank you very much…

I do like to see that what I write is being read, and even having an effect on how people think, but to think of myself as some kind of leader, guru, call it whatever you want, that people rely upon to lead them out of darkness…NO WAY JOSE, I never wanted that!

I know I’ve said it multiple times, but I’ll say it again here and now, I have never asked for people to take my word for what is contained within these rants. I have always hoped that folks would go out and research whether the quotes I use, or the events I talk about, actually happened the way I said they did. In that regard I’m more similar to Bruce Wayne/Batman in the Dark Knight – I always hoped this wouldn’t become my life’s work – that someday I would find a bunch of Harvey Dent’s to carry the torch forward so I could get back to my life.

What drove me, as an individual, was the pursuit of the truth; nothing more. The reason I began writing these rants was to share what I’d learned along the way; not become the leader of any movement or group.

The other day someone told me that the reason that people rely so heavily upon government, or place so much faith in it is because they need something to believe in; and if you take that something away you need to fill the void with something else. Now I can understand that, but I got the distinct impression that this individual was implying that I provide that something to fill the void should America wake up and regain its liberty.

I’m no Gandhi, I’m no Patrick Henry, I’m just some schlep who happens to like writing, and is never at a loss for words. Besides, the idea that people need someone to cling to, to guide them, is dangerous. Just look at those who followed Jim Jones in 1978, when over 900 of his followers committed mass suicide in Guyana.

Liberty, although it is God’s gift to all mankind, is first and foremost an individual thing; your liberty and what you do with it is your choice, as is my liberty and what I do with it. My goal is not to tell you what to do with liberty once you obtain it, or promise a better world should liberty be obtained by all mankind; I only seek to awaken people to what liberty is, and the fact that they have lost it to a government that is drunk on its own power.

I can’t promise anyone a better, safer, more comfortable life if they listen to me and follow me out of the bondage imposed upon them by their government; that would be disingenuous on my part should I even try. I think that although some people understand what liberty is, they may fail to understand that it also entails the responsibility of each person to take responsibility for their own lives, safety and sustenance.

I can’t promise that your life will be any better; that you will be any richer, and safer, any more secure should you pursue and obtain liberty; in fact you might not be. But what I can tell you is that you, and you alone, will be responsible for your own success or failure, and you won’t have anyone attempting to restrict you from succeeding, or plundering your wealth if you do succeed.

There is a maxim about government that some people fail to accept; that whatever government gives to one person it must first take from someone else. If government funds one class of people, say the poor, it must first confiscate the wealth of those who aren’t poor so it can have the funds to give to those who government, or society, deems deserve it. It does not matter whether those whose money the government confiscates are rich or middle class, the government is still taking something from some people that isn’t theirs to take, and giving it to people who haven’t earned it.

The same principle applies when government promises you safety and security at the expense of the rights of others to be armed for their own protection; you are denying the rights of those who’ve done nothing wrong, to fulfill a promise to keep those who can’t or won’t take measures to ensure their own safety.

Everything government does that benefits one group of society comes at the cost of plundering the wealth, rights and liberty of others…EVERYTHING!!!

You see, it all boils down to liberty; either you want it and accept that government cannot take your life, your property or your rights, or you don’t and you believe government can take whatever it feels best serves the overall public good…or general welfare. There is no middle ground on this, no grey area, no degrees of freedom vs servitude; it is one or the other; and if you can’t see that them I’m wasting my time talking to you.

The funny thing is, if you can call it funny, it is that I’m fighting for your liberty and your rights as well; even if you oppose me. For if I lose my rights and liberty, you lose yours as well. If I lose my right to speak out against government, then what’s to stop government from denying you the right to speak out should it begin doing things you don’t like? If I lose my right to defend my rights and liberty, what’s to stop government from saying you cannot defend yourself, your property, or your freedom?

See where I’m going with this?

No matter how much you hate or despise me for opposing government simply because it is doing things you currently support, in the end I’m fighting for your rights, your liberty as well as my own.

I could honestly care less if you voted yourselves straight into a concentration camp; so long as those who didn’t vote were left free to live their lives as they chose. Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way; the people you elect enact laws that many in this country disagree with; laws that violate our rights and restrict our liberty…and there’s not a damned thing we can do about it other than try to awaken you zombies to that fact.

In 1850 Frederic Bastiat wrote a book that should be required reading for all high school students; The Law. Unfortunately, the Statists who run and decide the curriculum for our schools cannot let thoughts like the ones Bastiat writes about be taught in their State run indoctrination centers; for it would lead to their own downfall should those thoughts take hold in the minds of our youth.

One of the things Bastiat said is in reference to the powers delegated to government and how it is but a collective force of the individual rights of each and every person. Here, read Bastiat’s words for yourself:

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

How many of you have read the Preamble to the constitution? If not, here is what it says, with emphasis placed upon the pertinent passages, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Therefore, if the constitution does not serve those purposes, if the government it established does not serve those purposes, then Spooner was right when he said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” You cannot deny that logic, no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you attempt to throw at me.

Those are the purposes, supposedly, (although I now know better), for which our Constitution was established, and the government it outlined was to serve. Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, 1856 edition, defines justice as “The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due.” Therefore, if a man has not violated the rights and liberty of another, then their rights and liberty cannot be limited or denied; especially if it is simply due to the fact that others disagree with that person exercising those rights.

You cannot deny anyone the right to say whatever they choose so long as what they say brings you no harm. The fact that what they say might be offensive to you, or threaten your beliefs, is not sufficient justification to deny a person their freedom of speech or expression.

The same thing goes for the right to keep and bear arms. No one, not society, nor the government, has the right to deny people that right simply because others are afraid of guns, or because some nutcase goes on a shooting spree.

The same thing goes for the right to privacy. Simply because there are those in this world who seek to do us harm is not sufficient justification for our government to spy upon each and every citizen; hoping to find evidence that they are planning to commit a crime or an act of terrorism.
Rights are rights, and they cannot be denied or restricted without due process of law; meaning the accused has been found guilty of abusing their rights and violating the rights of someone else.

The same goes for liberty; which is includes all our rights, and many others that aren’t specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights; see the 9th Amendment.

But I don’t fight for your liberty, although my doing so may be an unintended benefit for you. I fight for my rights and my liberty, and it is up to you to do the same for your rights and your liberty.

I may try, through these rants of mine, to awaken you, to provide you with facts you may not have known; but I’m no leader, and please, do not treat me as such. If you’re looking for someone to lead you out of bondage, out of oppression, look in the mirror, for I’m no Moses…but perhaps you are, so what are YOU doing to show others the way back to liberty?

If it should come down to it, and I hope it never will, I will fight side by side with anyone defending liberty; just don’t ask me to step forward and be a leader…I don’t want the job, and truthfully, I’d be lousy at it.

Before I begin I would like to say something. I have noticed that I have a following of some sorts; a small but faithful group of people who read my articles and share them with others. While I truly appreciate the support they offer, I would like to ask that if you are among this group you refrain from calling me a patriot.

Patrick Henry was a patriot when he said “Give me liberty or give me death” and meant it. Nathan Hale was a patriot when, before he was hung, he said, “My only regret is that I have but one life to lose for my country.” All those who took up arms to face the world’s mightiest army across the battlefields during the Revolution were patriots; for they faced hardships and odds that would make many men today cower in fear. Those who took up arms to defend their homesteads against invasion by the Union Army were patriots. Even Edward Snowden was/is a patriot for sacrificing his life in America to inform you of the crimes being committed by YOUR government.

Me, all I do is sit in the safety and comfort of my home and scribble out these rants; with very little risk to myself being involved. If this country continues to progress on its current path there may soon come a time when writers such as myself are called to answer for speaking out against their government, but until that time comes, and my actions are proven worthy of the title, I ask that you call me anything you want; anything except a patriot that is.

Thank you…

The reason I bring all that us isn’t to be self-deprecating, it is simply because I don’t believe I meet the criteria to be called a patriot; and if I don’t, then there are a great many more in this country who are far less patriotic than I am – or possibly they are simply misguided as to what patriotism entails.

I could be wrong, but I believe that far too many people believe patriotism entails standing proudly when the national anthem is played, reciting the pledge of allegiance, voting faithfully in every election, or slapping a few bumper stickers on your vehicle proclaiming your support for law enforcement and the troops.

If I were to cover each of those; explaining why I don’t consider them to be acts of patriotism, I could probably write a short book. So, since the holidays are upon us, and I’ve already begun to see graphics floating around on Facebook telling us to remember that our troops are off fighting for our freedoms, I thought I’d focus on those troops; and whether your blind support for them falls into the category of patriotism.

Whenever I’m out and about driving around I see a lot of these things plastered to the rear ends of people’s cars, trucks and SUV’s…and I mean A LOT…

Don’t mistake me or my support for those who have enlisted in the military and stand ready, at any time, to lay down their life in the defense of their country; for at one time I was among their ranks; having served 13 years, 9 months and 11 days, (but who is counting) in the military myself. My concern is whether those who display those stickers support the troops or the conflicts they are engaged in all over the word; and no, the two are not inseparable.

Had you studied our history as much as I have you would know that most of those we call our Founders feared the establishment of a standing army; believing that it could, and would be used to enforce the tyranny of the government it served. A standing army is basically a full time army ready to be called into action at a moment’s notice by the government as opposed to a reserve force, or the militia.

While I realize that times are different now and we could face threats our Founders did not during their lifetimes, my gripe with a standing army is not so much the fact that we have one, rather it is what they are being used for.

I would hope that everyone knows our military falls under the authority of the Department of Defense; which is coincidentally a cabinet level position that falls under the authority of the Executive Branch. Yet under the constitution only Congress can declare war. The last time that happened was on December 8, 1941 after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. So under what authority have our troops been sent to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the other sundry countries they been sent off to fight and die in?

If you believe that our troops can be sent all over the globe to, ‘take the fight to them before they bring it to us’ then why don’t you just accept that they no longer work under the authority of the Department of Defense, for these are not defensive wars, they are offensive wars. May as well rename the DoD to the Department of Offense if that’s what you truly think our military should be used for.

My belief, and it may differ from yours, is that our military should only serve to defend our country against attack and invasion. Aside from provisions for the militia and the establishment of an army and navy, the only other mention in the constitution that comes close to saying when the military shall be used is found in Article 4, Section 4, Clause 4, where it states, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

It does not say that the government has the authority to wage offensive wars, or chase our enemies back to their home countries, occupy those countries for decades, and help the people rebuild and establish democracies in place of whatever form of government they may have had; which is exactly what our government, (as well as a great many Americans) believe the military should do.

Since Article 4 states that the United States, which in this instance means the government of these States united, shall protect each of the States against invasion, why hasn’t it done a damned thing to stop the invasion that is going on along our Southern border?

I know this is a touchy subject for some, while others say I am denying my own beliefs because liberty means the ability of all people to travel freely wherever they want; regardless of borders. For those who feel this way, don’t even bother trying to rebuke me over this, I won’t take the bait and you’ll be wasting your time trying to goad me into a debate on it.

I believe that there are people out there, (not all of them, but some), who want to come to this country to either partake of the benefits this country has to offer without adhering to our customs and beliefs, and that there are others who come here with the intent to do us harm. I will not back down on the belief that we need to protect our borders from those type people; and if that causes you to believe I don’t truly stand for liberty for all, then so be it.

I don’t know about you, but the only word I can use to describe thousands of people per month sneaking into our country illegally is invasion. So why isn’t our government doing something about it; why aren’t troops stationed along our borders to repel this invasion? Are we afraid of offending our neighbors to the South? Too bad, let them fix their country so that people aren’t forced to flee to America for a better life; we have enough problems of our own here to worry about providing for them as well.

Sorry I went on a tirade about this, but illegal immigration and restrictions upon my right to keep and bear arms are still two areas that I’m quite passionate about; so forgive me if went a bit off track for a moment.

So let me ask you a question, and be honest with your answers; Is our military being used to defend America or is it being used to impose American foreign policy upon the world and protect U.S. business interests? Before you answer, ask yourself why our troops are guarding Saudi oil wells and protecting opium poppy fields in Afghanistan. Could it be that they are over there to protect the interests of Shell Oil and Texaco, and maybe even to protect the cash crop, (heroin) that funds a large percentage of the CIA’s black, (covert), operations?

Has the Tabliban attacked us here on American soil? If not, then why do we have troops in Afghanistan? Have the Iraqi people attacked us? Then why do we have troops over there, and why have we bombed much of their country back into the Stone Age? If the ‘official’ report on 9/11 is accurate, then those who hijacked the planes that day were either Saudi or Egyptian. But oh no, we can’t attack them, they are our allies. Yet Saudi Arabia is one of the leading countries responsible for funding and breeding terrorists, and the Wahhabism, (which is the sect of Islam practiced by the Saudi ruling class) is the most radical and outspoken; promoting violence against the infidels and those who believe differently than they do.

Nevertheless the Saud’s are our allies, even though the Saudi Royal Family funnels huge quantities of money into terrorist organizations around the world. But by golly we took care of ole Saddam Hussein, didn’t we? And look what happened afterwards, the CIA created Al Qaeda stepped in and now we have a new enemy to send our troops off to fight and die against. Has America become the world’s policemen that sends our troops off to fight evil wherever it pops up across the planet?

I want you to read something, then read it again and again until it sinks in. In 1821, then Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams made the following comments, “America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

Does that even come close to how our military is used today, or our foreign policy? If you’re honest, you’ll come to the conclusion that our military is being used for purposes it was not intended to do; such as topple tin pot dictators and aid and assist rebels fighting against the leaders of countries who pose a threat to U.S. business interests.

But Neal, they are attacking our troops, setting IED’s that kill and main our soldiers. True, but I don’t think an IED can hurt anyone in the U.S.; they only hurt and kill our troops because THEY ARE IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN! Bring our troops home and those IED’s can’t hurt them.

Since I mentioned bring our troops home I may as well ask why we have troops in any of the following countries: Belgium, Brazil, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Spain and Turkey? Are we at war with those countries? No, then why do we have troops there? Are we an empire with outposts all over the territory we have conquered or are we a country whose military is used only to defend itself against attack and invasion?

America freaked out when the former Soviet Union attempted to install nuclear weapons on the island of Cuba, yet we have bases all over the world; some of which I’m sure have nuclear weapons stockpiled away on them ready for use should another world war erupt. Yet we say this is to defend our country? How do you think the neighboring countries feel about us having a military presence in such close proximity to them? How would we feel if Russia began putting bases in Mexico and Canada; wouldn’t we feel threatened?

Is this whole thing, (countries trying to invade and set up military installations in them), a huge game of global chess with the superpowers fighting for control of the natural resources in the regions they seek control of? Do we keep troops in the Middle East because there is oil there?

I want you to read something else then ponder it as well. Smedley Butler was, at the time of his death, the most highly decorated Marine alive. For all intents and purposes he was a national hero; having served his country with honor and distinction. So why did Butler say the following:

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

I’m not saying there aren’t enemies out there, but until they attack the United States, not our interests abroad, but the U.S. itself, we have no justification for sending our troops into their country. How would we feel if Russia or China sent troops into America because they felt we posed a threat to their national interests? We would consider that an act of war, (which is justifiable), yet we condone the sending of our troops all over the globe, whether it be at the behest of policy established by the State Department, the CIA, or the President himself, not the mention the fact that our troops are also called into service to enforce United Nations resolutions.

Since I brought them up, let me tell you my thoughts on the United Nations; they can be summed up in a few short words…FUCK THE UNITED NATIONS! They don’t serve me or the United States; all they do is seek to impose their control over the world; they are globalist in nature and seek to eradicate the sovereignty of each nation; so fuck them!

In fact, if Americans had any balls at all they would march upon the nation’s capital by the millions and demand that the U.N. leave American soil and take their globalist agenda with them. Then, if they ever try to enforce a U.N resolution upon us, we should fly a couple of stealth bombers over and drop a few bunker buster bombs on U.N. Headquarters as a reminder to leave us the hell alone!

As a veteran I probably feel more strongly about supporting the troops than do those who plaster those stickers to their cars and trucks. I say we support them by not sending them to these countries where their lives are at risk to defend U.S. foreign policy or protect U.S. business interests.

I also say, that once they have served their country they should not be forgotten; thrown to the curb as useless trash the country no longer needs. If we can ask them to risk their lives defending this country, then by God we should treat them with the honor and respect that sacrifice deserves.

How many Iraqi war vets suffer from mental illness after having served multiple rotations in and out of Iraq; how many have lost their homes and are homeless; how many commit suicide after having seen and done some of the things their country asked them to do? Yet do you care about THAT when you slap that sticker on your car, or do you only care about defending them while they are actually placing their lives on the line for you misguided idea of patriotism and national defense?

And what about the POW’s and the MIA’s; the ones who lived through the war but never made it home; do you care about them when you slap that sticker on your car? Every war we’ve had has seen Americans held as prisoners of war, or been listed as missing in action. Some were found and made it home, while others died never seeing the U.S. again after having been asked to serve their country.

That, to me, is intolerable! If we send those young men and women off to fight, we should make sure every single one of them is accounted for when the conflict ends, and those that are living should be brought back home; not rot away in some POW camp somewhere. If we can’t make that promise to our fighting men and women then we have no business sending them off to fight and die protecting a country that doesn’t give a shit about them!

Have you ever watched the Mel Gibson movie We Were Soldiers? It tells the story of the U.S.’s first major battle in Vietnam. After a long, and costly battle, Gibson, who plays Lieutenant Colonel Hal Moore, wins a small victory; with the Vietnamese army abandoning their stronghold. When Moore/Gibson climbs aboard the helicopter to depart the field of battle his Sergeant Major, played by Sam Elliot, tells him that all Moore’s men are accounted for.
That is how a country treats those who it asks to risk their lives in battle to serve; no one should be left unaccounted for; either dead or alive they should ALL be brought home; not left to rot like forgotten toys.

If our government can do that to those it sends in to battle, then that government does not deserve our respect or support, and I damn sure am not going to support the wars it sends them off to die in.

I will, until my last dying breath, support our troops. I won’t, however, support the wars they are sent off to fight and die in. Our troops do not work for the U.N.; they don’t work for Wall Street; they don’t work for the CIA, and they damn sure don’t work for a government that takes its marching orders from the power brokers who actually run our government. Our soldiers should defend this country and let other countries fend for themselves; and for that they should be honored as heroes, not refuse to be tossed aside when their usefulness has come to an end.

And if you cannot support that position, then I suggest you tear that sticker off your car, because it is anything but patriotic; for a patriot loves his country, and his government only when it deserves it, (Mark Twain). Our government does neither, and I refuse to support our government, and the wars it sends our fighting men and women off to die in.

Oh, and have a Happy Thanksgiving…