Neal's Soapbox

“Every country has the government it deserves.”
~Joseph de Maistre~

“Those who control the present, control the past and those
who control the past control the future.”
~George Orwell~

In the beginning of the film Gladiator, after the defeat of Germania, there is a scene when Marcus Aurelius calls Maximus into his tent and tells him of his plans for Rome after he dies. During that conversation Caesar tells Maximus, “There was once a dream that was Rome.” Caesar was telling Maximus that Rome was more than just a spot on a map, it was an idea; and, while they had strayed from that idea it was Caesars hope that by placing Maximus in charge he could steer Rome back towards its founding idea as a republic. That idea, that concept, has been on my mind a lot lately as I watch the country I love circle the toilet.

There are two reasons why men take up arms against their fellow human beings; conquest or the defense of what they hold dear. After over a century and a half of peaceful existence as British subjects the Colonists took up arms against their government. They sought not to conquer Great Britain; rather they sought to defend their rights and liberty; which they felt were under attack by the British Government. Let the Declaration of Independence stand as a testament to that claim, “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

Therefore, it can be claimed that the dream that America was founded upon was one in which the people could live in a country where tyranny did not exist; that the people were free to enjoy the full extent of their rights and liberty. While our system of government may have been established to secure our rights and liberty, ultimately that responsibility falls upon us; the people. To do so effectively requires a couple of things. First, it requires that we know what our rights are and what true liberty is, and secondly it requires a certain amount of courage to stand up to wannabe tyrants. Could it be that is why Francis Scott Key included the following in the Star Spangled Banner, “…the land of the free and the home of the brave”? Maybe it’s fitting that protesters recently tore down the statue of Francis Scott Key in San Francisco, as his words no longer apply to this country, or the people living in it.

Do you honestly think George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John and Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry would have worn a face mask because King George told them to, or stayed in their homes because the King decreed they must so as to prevent the spread of some disease? It’s obvious you don’t know your history, for if you did you would know that the American Revolution was fought during an outbreak of Smallpox; which is far deadlier than Covid.

Did the patriots of 1776 let a disease stop them from rising up against a tyrant to regain their liberty? Of course they didn’t; because to them liberty was more important than life itself. I bet you’ve already forgotten the words of Patrick Henry; “Give me liberty or give me death.” To those men who had that dream that was America, life was not worth living if it did not include liberty; and look at the people now who willingly surrender theirs for a few paltry promises of comfort and security. You make me sick to my stomach!

To understand the dream that was America requires a solid understanding of the history that saw America gain its independence from Great Britain. If you don’t know that history how are you to know what they were fighting for? In his immortal “Give me liberty or give me death” speech, Patrick Henry also said, “I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” As America was to become the ‘new kid on the block’ in regards to countries, it only had the history of the rest of the world to serve as a guide for what types of government best secured the rights and liberty of the people, and which were the most destructive of those things. Yet, almost to a one, our Founders were well versed in the history of the world; often quoting examples regarding past systems of government in their writings and speeches.

Take one look around you and then ask yourself why we are in such a sad state of affairs. Hell, if you want to be brutally honest, take a look in the mirror if you want to know why things are so mucked up here in the so-called land of the free. If I were to ask you, prior to Donald Trump, who the last 5 presidents of the United States were, could you answer without using Google? Yet I’d be willing to bet that I’d get more correct answers if I were to ask who won the last 5 Superbowls. Why is that?

Not only are people ignorant of the past, they are proud of their ignorance. People will tell you they are making informed decisions when they go to the polls and cast their ballots, but then ask them to name a few of the specific powers delegated to government by the Constitution and their eyes will glaze over as they try to come up with an answer that doesn’t expose their own ignorance. Ask anyone what a Writ of Habeas Corpus is, or what a Letter of Marque and Reprisal is, and if you’re lucky, maybe 1 out of 1,000 could answer correctly. Informed decisions my ass!

I do not blame the American people for their ignorance; that is due to the fact that the institutions that are supposed to be educating them have withheld, or distorted history so as to deprive them of the knowledge needed to make good decisions at the polls. Yet in 1822 the Father of our Constitution, James Madison, wrote, “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” So if the schools don’t teach you the truth, it is up to you to seek it out for yourself.

I said I do not blame people for their ignorance; which is true, I don’t. I do, however, blame them for continuing on in ignorance when the truth is readily available; for rejecting it because it conflicts with what they have been taught. Although I do not particularly care for Aleister Crowley and his beliefs, he did say something that I believe is 100% accurate; that being, “The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.” Yet that quote describes upwards of 95% of the people living in this country today; particularly those who are responsible for all this mayhem currently going on.

Ask most people what our system of government is and the majority will tell you we have a democracy. That is because that is what they were taught in school, and then had reinforced time and time again by the news media. Yet go back and read the writings of those who actually founded this country and you’ll find that they all despised democracies; even that asshole Alexander Hamilton hated them. Democracy is simply majority, or mob, rule; without any safeguards for the rights and liberty of the minority, or the individual. In a letter to Dupont De Nemours, Thomas Jefferson explained, “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.” Well there you have it, since people believe that we are a democracy, they also believe that the majority can impose its will upon the minority, or the individual; which in turn, BREAKS THE FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIETY.

I hear all this talk about equality from people when they don’t understand what equality really means. To them, equality is equal status in life, when to those who signed the Declaration of Independence it was equality in rights and liberty, and in opportunity to achieve either success or happiness. If we are all equal, according to the definition used by Social Justice Warriors, why can’t I play football at the same level as a professional football player; why can’t I play the guitar at the same level as some virtuoso guitarist? What equality means is that I am equal in my opportunity to play the guitar, but my success at it depends solely upon my skill, and the amount of work I put towards achieving success in that endeavor.

In 1793 the Supreme Court heard the case of Chisholm v Georgia. In their decision they declared, “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves.” Can you grasp the significance of that statement, or is it beyond your ability to do so? What that basically means is, after the American Revolution, each of use became a king; with only ourselves to rule over. Each of us was equal in our authority to determine for ourselves how we would live our lives; and that sovereignty was without limits so long as we respected the rights and liberty of those around us.

As sovereigns, the people came together and established forms of government which, at the time, the people felt would best secure and defend their rights and liberty; while giving government simple managerial powers to handle the general affairs of either the State or the country. As long as government, be it local, state, or central, stuck to its intended purposes, then peace would abide and equality will exist in its purest state; with all men being equal to pursue happiness – just like the Declaration of Independence said. It is when government usurps powers it was never intended it have that things begin to go wrong.

In his Second Treatise on Civil Governments, John Locke writes, “AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.” (Chapter XVIII, Section 199) If we are truly equal as sovereigns, then I have no right to infringe upon your rights or restrict your liberty; nor do you have any right to do the same to me. Not only that, but if government is indeed the agent of the people, established for the purpose of securing equal rights to all, then it cannot enact laws or ordinances that infringe upon the rights of a single person; let alone the minority; which is exactly what happens in a democracy.

However, man is a flawed creature, led more often by passion, greed, lust, and envy than it is for respect for the life, liberty and the property of others. If government were to serve its intended purpose, then the laws it enacted would serve to protect the rights of all citizens equally; without preference for certain groups or classes of men. Yet what is government if it is not men, and women, gathered together to act on behalf of those who hold the true political power in America; the people; which is what sovereignty means by the way. Is it too much a stretch of the imagination to say that since government consists of people, that it is subject to the same frailties, desires, and weaknesses that we are?

In arguing in favor of ratification of the proposed Constitution James Madison said something interesting, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” (Source: Federalist 51) Of course he then goes on to explain how his wonderful Constitution accomplishes that task – of controlling the government; which we all should know by now is utter nonsense, as it hasn’t stopped government from infringing upon our rights and restricting our liberty.

I can’t speak for any of you, but that brings up a question that I’d love to hear your answers to. If the Constitution is, as so many claim, such a great document, and if the government it established is, as others claim, the best in the world, how has it managed to do such a piss poor job of securing the rights and liberty of those it governs? Could it possibly be that this government, the document that established it and the men who wrote it weren’t so inspired? Maybe Spooner was absolutely correct 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 it has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

If we, or at least our ancestors, as sovereigns, came together and established this system of government, did they not also have the right to dismantle or abolish it if it proved detrimental to the purposes for which it was established? This government, as an entity created by the sovereign authority of the people, cannot dictate that those thus governed by it must submit to its authority for all time. In fact, early in its existence it sought to exercise powers beyond those delegated to it; causing Thomas Jefferson to write, “…that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority.”

If you were to go back to the years leading up to the American Revolution and read what those men who led the charge for liberty and independence, you might learn that they felt that there were two categories of laws; there were the laws written by man and there were Natural Laws; laws that governed us as human beings regardless of what type government we might have. One of those, in fact the first of these laws is the right of self defense. In 1772 Samuel Adams explained that right as follows, “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.”

Seventy Eight years later a Frenchman by the name of Frederic Bastiat would write, “What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

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

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

This government was either created to secure the rights of the governed, or it wasn’t; and there is ample evidence to prove that it was the latter. Nevertheless, as the sovereign authority from which government derives its power, it is our right to resist laws that violate our rights, or to simply disregard them as if they had never been written. It is only by our willingness to obey them, or our fear of the consequences of not obeying them, that government derives its ability to tyrannize and oppress us; which is why I question why people still believe this is the land of the free and home of the brave – with emphasis on the brave part of that statement.

If enough people knew their own power we could nullify all the laws that violate our rights and restrict our liberty, by simply saying no, we will not obey those laws. There is also another way that our freedoms can be preserved; that through our power as jurors. If just one out of twelve jurors knew what rights were, what liberty was, they could prevent anyone from being convicted of violating a law, a law that violated the rights and liberty of the accused. A jurors vote in the jury box is more powerful than any decision rendered by the Supreme Court; and if people would just educate themselves, and exercise that power, we could effectively cage government within the confines of securing and preserving our rights and liberty.

These rights that I speak of existed, and were well understood by those living in 1776. They exist today as well; it’s just that you have not been taught about them. In 1791 Thomas Paine would write, “The rights of men in society, are neither devisable or transferable, nor annihilable, but are descendable only, and it is not in the power of any generation to intercept finally, and cut off the descent.” It is your ignorance that deprives you of the knowledge of these rights; and it is only through self-education that you can break free of the indoctrination that keeps you enslaved to a government that is far worse than the one or ancestors fought a revolution to free themselves from.

I graduated from the same public indoctrination centers, (school system), that everyone else did. The only reason I’m aware of the information I have just shared with you is because I made a conscious decision to seek out the truth. Were there times when the things I learned caused me to question my entire belief system? You bet your ass there were; but if you cannot handle the truth, then I think that means you’re weak and lack intellectual integrity.

So, as I sit by and watch what is currently happening in this country, how historical monuments are being torn down, I can’t but think that this is the inevitable outcome of generations of revisionist history and government sanctioned indoctrination. I don’t know that America can survive the coming storm, and quite honestly, with the attitude held by most people in this country today, I don’t honestly care; I think they deserve whatever is coming because they were too lazy and apathetic to seek out the truth, or listen to it when someone tried to share it with them.

What saddens me is that the history, the true history of this country will most likely be lost when it happens. In a letter to Hugh Taylor, dated 4 October 1823, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “It is the duty of every good citizen to use all the opportunities which occur to him, for preserving documents relating to the history of our country.”

Since the people of this country, aside from a small minority, are oblivious to the history of this country, I have decided that any further efforts on my part to educate and enlighten them is a complete and utter waste of time and effort on my part. Therefore, I have decided to do as Jefferson said, seek to preserve as much of that history as I can before I die, or before it vanishes and is re-written.

Hopefully, someone, sometime in the future might stumble across this information, and say, “Damn, there’s the answer, the pathway to freedom.” As for those living today, as far as I’m concerned most of y’all are a lost cause, and I’m done wasting my time on you.

P.S. I might be back, I may just need a break from the madness, the ignorance, and all that is causing this overwhelming sense of despair. But for the time being, this will be the last you hear of me; I’m taking a break from the ignorance and seeking out the sanity of those whose words and deeds had a vision, a dream for this country…a dream most of y’all don’t know, or care about anymore.

“Nothing is more frightful than ignorance in action.”
~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe~

I haven’t written anything for awhile because, quite honestly, I just haven’t felt like it. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been paying attention to what’s been happening – close attention – but just haven’t felt inspired to write; I feel like nothing I say is going to change the final outcome, so why bother? However, this morning I watched a video that shocked me to my core, and it got the gears going again, and here I am pestering you once more with my thoughts.

I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, (actually I don’t), but life isn’t easy; it isn’t a Hollywood picture show where good always prevails and the good guy rides off into the sunset with the girl. Life can be dark, it can be ugly, and it can be brutal; and I think we are heading into a period of darkness in this country that many people aren’t emotionally prepared for, or equipped to handle.

The video that broke my silence shows a Black Lives Matter protester grabbing a woman’s dog and then begins swinging it by the leash; using it as a weapon against the woman she took the dog from. All I could think of after having the image of that dog being abused like that was; what kind of subhuman savage would do something like that to a poor defenseless animal?

In the film V For Vendetta, there is a scene when the protagonist V says, “Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.” While that is true I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that people don’t care about the truth in this country; or at least hear any words that threaten the fragile truths that form their beliefs.

If I were to ask you what sets man apart from the creatures on this planet, what would be your answer? I think what sets man apart from the animals, (aside from the fact that God gave them to us to have dominion over), is the fact that we are endowed with the ability to think, to use reason and logic, and the ability to examine facts and form opinions based upon them. If we can’t do that, or if we refuse to do it, then truthfully, we’re no better than the animals.

It is our ability to think, to use logic, to believe that all mankind have certain rights that should be protected that sets us above the animals and controls our baser instincts. I hate to bring movie plots into a serious discussion of what is currently happening in America, but the film The Purge has been the subject of much thought lately.

In the movie, to preserve peace, those in power decide that, for one night a year, the people would be free to commit whatever crimes they want; to get that violence out of their system so that, for the remainder of the year, they would be better able to act in a peaceable manner as members of society.

What I see happening in this country is akin to that in that some people are just out there committing all manner of offenses without any consequences whatsoever; all under the guise of protesting against police brutality; which has morphed into a protest about systemic abuse of blacks by all white people – making white people, and all they hold dear targets for violence and aggression.

I’m all for protesting against the abuse of power by, not only the police, but government in general. But there is a difference between what is currently going on and protesting…a big difference. How does looting address the issue of police brutality? How does burning down a Wendy’s (where a case of supposed police brutality took place) address the issue? How does tearing down or defacing monuments, desecrating graves, and assaulting people who had nothing to do with this police brutality address the issue?

While I continue to believe that the tensions that have led to this are real, I also believe that there are forces behind the scenes that are using these tensions; pouring gas on them if you will, to further their agendas. What those agendas may be I’ll leave up to you to decide. I’ve always had such suspicions, which were confirmed when pallet size stacks of bricks miraculously appeared overnight at the scenes of the initial riots after George Floyd’s death.

Spanish novelist George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” What I see happening in this country is quite similar to what happened in Russia in the early 20th century with the Bolshevik Revolution which placed Vladimir Lenin into power; thereby creating the Soviet Union.

During this period in Russian History there was something known as the Red Terror where upwards of 1.3 million were executed for one reason or another. Martin Latsis, who was head of the Cheka, (an early form of Soviet Secret Police), wrote, “We are not fighting against single individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror.”

What basically happened was that anyone who held to the old ways, old beliefs, was targeted as an enemy of the State and either sent off to the Gulags, or executed. I see the same thing happening here in America right before my eyes, and I feel powerless to prevent it.

The same economic hardships which led to the initial protests in Russia are similar to the economic hardships felt by Americans due to the lockdowns and social distancing guidelines enacted due to the Covid virus. On top of all that we have generation after generation who have been indoctrinated into socialist beliefs by the public fool system; ignoring the fact that socialism always fails. All it took was for someone to strike a match to this powder keg, and then we have the beginnings of an uprising that could very well mean the end of our republic based upon the concept of individual liberty.

In the initial phases of the Bolshevik Revolution the military was ordered to quell the rioting; whether it was something they either could not effectively do, or something they refused to do is of little concern. What is of concern is the similarity between what happened in Russia back then and what is happening in America right now.

Right now we are seeing the police basically standing down; giving protesters, rioters and looters a free pass to commit whatever crimes they want. Could it be due to the fact that they are fearful of making things worse? Possibly, but regardless of that fact, these protests, riots, and destruction of public property are going on pretty much unopposed by the power structure; almost as if they want it to continue.

Then, to make matters worse, we are seeing instances of individuals seeking to defend themselves, or their property, being charged with crimes for doing so. Recently a couple in Missouri saw the gate to their property broken down and protesters began harassing them on their property. This couple, the McCloskey’s, were arrested by authorities for brandishing a firearm on their own property; which according to State Law, is not a crime in Missouri.

Even if it were, that law would be a violation of Natural Law, as explained by Samuel Adams, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”

If a person loses the right to defend themselves or their property, what recourse do they have against common criminals and tyrants? Yet here we see an example of an overzealous, or politically motivated official, seeking to ‘make an example’ of the McCloskeys; who were only defending their property against intruders.

Then there is the case of Jillian Wuestenberg of Michigan who was confronted by 3 angry black women when she supposedly bumped into one of them while exiting a Chipotles. An argument ensued, and when the McCloskeys tried to peacefully leave the mother attempted to block their exit by standing behind, and pounding upon the vehicle. Both of the victims in this confrontation were registered CCW carriers, and when the mother attempted to block their exit Jillian exited the vehicle and drew her weapon telling the woman to get out of her way. She has also been accused of a crime.

If people cannot defend themselves, or their property, then we are basically in a constant stage of turmoil and danger; a real life Purge in which those on the side of whatever is politically correct at the moment is allowed to do to further their cause.

I’m not saying all black people support what is happening, but nevertheless the motive behind it is based upon supposed systemic racism against blacks…at least that is what they are saying. They see whites, and everything the whites stand for, as their enemies; and nobody will be safe if this movement grows into a nationwide conflagration.

All this could have been avoided had we been taught the truth in school, if our parents and their parents had been taught that same truth. People aren’t taught the reasons why government exist; not to provide them with things, but to stay the hell out of the people’s way and let them seek success through hard work; while protecting their rights and liberty. People aren’t taught the truth about the Civil War either; being taught that it was fought to end slavery; turning it from a war for independence into a war against the institution of slavery.

Since people have not been taught the truth, they fall for the lies and become unhappy, discontented, when they don’t get their slice of the American Dream; meaning riches and success. This leads to either class or race warfare; one of which we are witnessing now.

The unfortunate thing is, those who are behind all this think that socialism is the cure all for all that ails this country. Once again, their ignorance of history blinds them to the truth that socialism never succeeds in elevating the people out of poverty; it lowers everyone into it, while elevating those in power above them. The rich and well connected never suffered under the Soviet regime; it was always the common people who suffered. It’s the same in Venezuela right now; those in power are doing just fine, while it is the people who suffer.

I honestly don’t know if there is any light at the end of the tunnel, or if we’ve placed ourselves into a situation where we must, as Winston Churchill said, “You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” That is why I began this by saying that I don’t think people realize the dark days that lie ahead in their future, or if they are emotionally prepared for them. Prepared or not, they are coming; and maybe vindication may be my only reward, as I have failed miserably at waking enough people up to prevent it from coming.

I do know one thing though. If an all out race war does come to this country, whatever the outcome may be, I know that Thomas Jefferson predicted it. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XIV Jefferson wrote, “It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.”

I fear it’s coming to this country folks; all it will take is for some hothead to pull the trigger to start it. The truth, facts, they don’t matter anymore. All that matters is how people feel; they are running on pure passion and emotions; making them nothing better than the beasts of the wild.

Man has known and now he’s blown it
Upside down and hell’s the only sound, we did an awful job
And now they say it’s nobody’s fault.
~Nobody’s Fault~
-Aerosmith-

Each and every person alive faces an endless stream of choices in their lives. Some of these choices are relatively inconsequential, some may end up being life altering, and others fall somewhere in between. For instance, what you choose to wear is of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. However, choosing whether or not to drink drain cleaner can have catastrophic consequences should you happen to make the wrong choice.

While we may not give it much thought, many of these choices we make may end up defining us; shaping us into who we become as adults. For instance, I never gave much thought to enlisting in the military in 1979; I needed a steady job and the military seemed like as good an option as any. However, had I not chosen to enlist in the military I would not have been sent to the Philippines in 1989; and had that not happened I would not have met and married my wife.

That quick example proves two things. First it shows that there are consequences for the choices we make. Sometimes those consequences are good, sometimes they are bad; but in either case they are UNAVOIDABLE. Secondly, these consequences might not be immediately felt, or noticed. For instance, I was in the military for 10 years before I married my wife; meaning that the consequences of making that choice took awhile before they made a difference in my life. Who knows where I’d be or what I’d be doing had I not chosen to enlist in the military?

There are many other examples I could provide proving that choices have consequences, such as the decision to get behind the wheel of an automobile after drinking too much, or starting to smoke cigarettes at a young age; but I think you get the picture that each choice you make ends up having some kind of consequence.

Before I continue I want to ask you a simple question. Who makes these choices? Do others make them for us, or do we make them for ourselves? The reason I ask is, if you understood what liberty was, the only person responsible for the consequences of these choices is the person who made them. Liberty is unrestricted action according to our own freewill; as long as in exercising that freewill we do not infringe upon the rights of others. What that basically means is that I am free to do what I please with myself and my life, so long as in so doing I do not deprive anyone of any of their rights, or their ability to live their lives according to the dictates of their hearts.

Now if I were to make a choice to begin taking drugs, then according to the concept of individual liberty, only I am responsible for whatever consequences come about due to me taking those drugs. Society did not make that choice, I did, so society is under no obligation to support me, pay for any medical treatment I might require as a result of taking those drugs, or pay for my rehabilitation should I become addicted to them. I made the choice, I must pay the price.

Now, if others feel pity upon me for my plight, then they can willingly give of their freewill to help me recover; or even to pay for my habit, if they so choose. Charity is fine when it comes from the heart of those giving it. However, when charity is forced upon those who may not want to contribute it, then it becomes theft; which when talking about government is just another word for tyranny.

As an example of this, the American people go to the polls every couple of years to elect representatives to do things on their behalf, right? How is it that this government is authorized to send millions of dollars of taxpayer money to countries all across the globe in the form of foreign aid? Does this government represent the people of Syria, ($890 million); Nigeria, ($848 million); and Colombia, ($405 million); and those are just a few of the countries that the U.S. sends massive amounts of YOUR money to in the form of foreign aid.

In a roundabout way this brings us to my next topic of discussion – consent of the governed. I do not consent to having one red cent of the money they take from me in taxes being sent to any foreign country for foreign aid. If I want to send money to Nigeria, to the Ukraine, or to South Africa, then I am perfectly capable of donating of my own free will; but having government take that money without my consent, and then sending it to those places, again without my consent, makes me angry…very angry.

In 1776 fifty-six men signed a document which we all know as the Declaration of Independence. They did not do this of their own accord; they were acting on behalf of others who had given their consent for those men to represent them in the Continental Congress. Had those men acted of their own volition, those who sent them could simply have nullified the Declaration of Independence by refusing to honor it within the respective Colonies. To affix their names to that document meant that they had the consent of those who they were representing.

That document gave birth to the United States; although it took bloodshed to secure the principles it enshrined. Prior to that document being written we were not the United States of America, we were 13 British Colonies. That document was written in support of the resolution introduced by Richard Henry Lee, which stated that, “…these United Colonies are, and of right to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown…”

They did not ask jolly old King George if they could separate, they felt it was their right to do so; and the Declaration of Independence was a document stating why they made that choice, as well as the principles they were establishing this country upon. So therefore, when discussing government, it is vital that we compare what government does against what the Declaration of Independence says governments are supposed to do.

There are certain fundamental principles you must keep in mind when discussing any system of government, those being:

– All men are created equal;

-All men have certain unalienable rights granted them by their Creator;

-Among those rights, (but not limited to them are), life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;

-That governments are instituted to secure those rights;

-That government derives its authority from the consent of the governed;

-and finally, whenever any government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, (the securing of our rights and liberty), it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

Those are the principles this country was founded upon and you can choose to either support and defend them or you can choose to ignore them; just remember that whatever choice you make comes irrevocably tied to certain consequences. Now let’s move on to another aspect of this discussion – sovereignty.

Sovereignty is defined as the supreme, or absolute, political power in a society. If, as the Declaration of Independence says, government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, then it is logical to conclude that government itself is not sovereign; those who created it are. I think, in the minds of most people, that is reversed; that government is sovereign and we must obey its every command – whether we fully agree with them or not.

No, that simply is not true; not by any stretch of the imagination. Government can come into existence by but one of two methods; either it can come about through usurpation, or it can come about by the consent of the governed. One of these leads to tyranny and the other offers a chance that the people will retain their rights and liberty if they would but ensure that government remains faithful to the purposes for which it was established.

In this country we created government, we gave it its power, and therefore we are superior to it; meaning we are the sovereigns, with government being but our servants; delegated with certain powers for certain specific purposes.

During the Revolutionary War era, as the Colonies were fighting to become free and independent States, they sought to establish governments for themselves through written constitutions. As each State was seeking its independence, it is logical to conclude that these State governments were established to serve the people living within their boundaries. Those living in the Commonwealth of Virginia had no authority to establish a system of government that could affect the lives of people living in New York, or vice versa. Each State was establishing a government for itself; and for itself only.

Why then did they also seek to establish a centralized form of government if they already had governments that could handle all the needs of those living within each State? The answer is quite simple if you would but read the Articles of Confederation. In the Revolution there was a common phrase that graced one of the many flags flown by the Colonies; Unite or Die. They knew that alone, none of the States could defeat the British; and even united they came close to losing their quest for independence.

What the Articles of Confederation say is, “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”

What they were basically saying to each other was, “Hey, I’ll help you out if you promise to help me out; while I’ll leave you alone to manage your own internal affairs the way you see fit if you do the same for me.”

As each State was sovereign and independent, the way the Articles of Confederation configured this government was that no State, or group of States, could combine and threaten the rights and liberty of those living within another State. They accomplished this by requiring that any measure proposed by the Congress be agreed upon unanimously by all 13 State Legislatures. This assured that the big States couldn’t bully the smaller States; as all held an equal voice in what became law under this system of government.

Of great importance is the fact that, under that system, the government could not levy taxes; particularly direct taxes upon the people. What they would do was tell the States how much was needed to manage the affairs they were trusted with, and it was up to the States whether they would comply or not. While that may sound like it made the government weak and ineffective, it provided a barrier which defended the rights and liberty of the people against intrusion by the central government; the defense of which is the purpose of government if you’ll recall what the Declaration of Independence says.

Well the status quo under the Articles of Confederation did not sit well with some in America’ they wanted a much stronger, more energetic, system of government. However, for the average person living in the States things were going relatively well; so these people had to come up with something, some justification for making changes to the status quo. Among the many claims made were that trade was suffering and taxes were not being collected; which threatened the existence of the Confederation. Then there was Shay’s Rebellion, a tax revolt inside the State of Massachusetts that exacerbated things even more.

So, in 1786 a convention was held in Annapolis, Maryland, where these men gathered together to discuss solutions to these, quote unquote, problems. Unfortunately for them not enough States sent delegates to attend this convention; but that did not deter them, as they called for a more general convention to be held the following spring in Philadelphia.

So, in February the Congress sent word to the States that a convention was to be held, for the purpose of, “…revising the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the United States of America and reporting to the United States in Congress assembled and to the States respectively such alterations and amendments of the said Articles of Confederation as the representatives met in such convention shall judge proper and necessary to render them adequate to the preservation and support of the Union.”

However, these delegates, well most of them anyway, CHOSE not to adhere to the specific instructions they had been given; they CHOSE to write an entirely new document, a constitution, which outlined a new system of government which would abolish the existing one. Now I don’t know what dictionary you use, but that sounds an awful lot like treason to me; or at the least, an attempted coup d’état.

They knew that what they were doing went against their instructions, which is why they swore each other to secrecy, posted a guard outside the chambers where they were deliberating, and hung blinds over the windows to keep prying eyes from seeing what was going on.

Once their work was completed, and once the delegates who opposed this new system in Pennsylvania had been run over roughshod, these opponents to the constitution would write the following about the whole affair, “Whilst the gilded chains were forging in the secret conclave, the meaner instruments of despotism without, were busily employed in alarming the fears of the people with dangers which did not exist, and exciting their hopes of greater advantages from the expected plan than even the best government on earth could produce….”

Now let me pause for a moment and ask you a question. If the people had established the various State governments for themselves, and if the States had established the government under the Articles of Confederation for themselves, and if they had given specific instructions to the delegates to the convention in Philadelphia to revise the existing system, then do you think that the States would have consented to what was going on in secrecy behind closed doors?

If not, then what those delegates did was to tear down the principle that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed; for the central government derived IT’S power from the individual States, not the people. Keep that in mind as we continue.

So, over the course of the summer of 1787, amidst much argument I might add, these delegates finally arrived upon a document that most of them could agree to – the Constitution. However, they bypassed existing law, which required that any changes to the Confederation be agreed to by Congress, AND the unanimous consent of all 13 States, they said that this new document must derive its consent from the great body of the people.

Why? Why would the people need to vote on whether or not to accept this new system; particularly when they already had the State governments to handle all their needs? Well the answer is twofold. First, those who wanted to bring about this change saw that the government established by the Articles of Confederation prohibited them from passing laws, and more importantly, levying taxes directly upon the people. Secondly, they sought to weaken State power, which was substantial under the Articles of Confederation.

James Madison stated his intentions to do just that…BEFORE THE CONVENTION EVEN MET!!! In a letter to George Washington, dated April 16, 1787 Madison wrote, “Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcileable with their aggregate sovereignty; and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for some middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.”

From the get go it was Madison’s intention to reduce the States from sovereigns over the central government to a position of subordination under it. Patrick Henry, among others, saw the danger in what Madison and his cohorts were attempting to do and he asked, “…what right had they to say, We, the People? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, who authorised them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States?1 States are the characteristics, and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government of the people of all the states.”

So not only did Madison and crew throw down the concept of consent of the governed, they sought to turn the entire political structure in this country on its head by establishing a supreme government, (see Article 6 of the Constitution), with the power to lay whatever taxes it wanted, (see Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1), with unlimited power, (see the Necessary and Proper Clause).

What they did was place the people, who were sovereigns over their State governments, and their State governments which were sovereign over the central government, all under the authority of the central government; reversing the whole relationship between master and servant. The people, and the States, would now serve the central government instead of being its master; a complete reversal of how things had been under the Articles of Confederation.

But wait, I’m not done yet; there’s more to this than what I’ve laid out for you so far.

In the States the people go to the polls and choose who will represent them in their respective State governments. Although the political party machinery now decides which candidates the people are allowed to choose from, in principle the system still is based upon consent of the governed; as it is the people voting, en masse, for who will govern over them.

If this new system was to derive its authority from the consent of the people, why was it only ratified by a few select members taken from amongst the people; why not put it to the vote of ALL the people living within the States? Yet those who wrote the Constitution did not want the whole people voting on it; which is why they called for assemblies to be held; wherein they could pack the assemblies with like minded supporters of their coup d’état.

Had they put the vote to ALL the people, the Constitution would most likely never have been adopted. That is why they tried to force it through quickly in Pennsylvania; using less than gentlemanly tactics I might add. They did not want a careful examination of the document they had produced, and they sure as hell did not want to give opponents of it any chance to point out its weaknesses and the threats to their rights and liberty it contained.

Not only did the Constitution do all that, it also only required that 3/4 of the States approve of it before the system it outlined went into operation; totally disregarding Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation which required the unanimous consensus of all the States before any changes could be made to the system.

So the Constitution, and its creators not only trashed the idea of consent of the governed, they violated the existing law in the process. What a swell bunch of guys!

What about the Declaration of Independence’s statement that all men are created equal? I think there is a lot of confusion, or at least misconception as to what that actually means; all men are created equal. I think a lot of people think it means that if someone has a good paying job and a fancy home, then they too should have a good paying job and a fancy home; after all, equal is equal, right?

Is it just me, or can anyone else not see that what that promotes is socialism? Besides, if the signers of the Declaration of Independence believed that why would they also include among our unalienable rights the right to pursue happiness? Think about it, if we were all equal in all things, why would we have to PURSUE happiness; we’d already have it. Or is that too deep a question for shallow minds?

This equality that is spoke of in the Declaration of Independence is not the social equality that people today think it is; it is the equality of opportunity to seek out and obtain happiness, success, wealth, or glory, based upon your own skill and your own drive.

Remember now, the Declaration of Independence says that governments exist to secure the rights of the governed, and if government does not do that, it is not serving the purpose for which it was established. But then again I might be wrong, maybe the government established by the Constitution is doing exactly what it was intended to do; subvert all the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

As Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of that document, let’s see what he had to say about what people today call social justice. In a letter to Joseph Milligan, dated April 6, 1816, Jefferson writes, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” Well gee whiz it sure sounds like he opposed what people today like to call the redistribution of wealth.

In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson also stated, “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.” Wise; well that’s certainly questionable. And as for frugal; with a $26 trillion national debt, I’d say they failed miserably there!

Finally, in his Inaugural Address he also stated, “All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

Well let me see, my right to speak my mind openly is under attack. My right to keep and bear arms is under attack. My right to profess my faith wherever and whenever I choose is under attack. My right to travel outside my home; to assemble with friends freely, and to resist governmental abuses of power are certainly under attack.

Did I just say that, resist governmental abuses of power? You think that is NOT among my rights? Well according to the Declaration of Independence it is, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” But our government has already proven that it won’t let that happen, hasn’t it? When 11 States decided that they felt that this government had been abusing its power, and violating their rights as States, they chose to seceded, peacefully I might add, from the Union. But by golly, good ole Abe Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, said, “Wait a minute fellas, you can’t do that, and if you try I’m gonna send men with guns down there and force you back into the Union.” What was that about consent of the governed?

The government established by the Constitution took everything the Declaration of Independence stood for and threw it right into the trash heap of history. Oh, you’ve got certain rights, that is until you go too far and question the laws government enacts, or the authority of those who enforce them. Then you’ll quickly see those rights trampled upon. Ask anyone who has tried living free of excessive governmental control; that is if they are still alive.

You can choose ignorance if you want, but the consequences of your ignorance is to be ruled by a government with no bounds upon its power. You can choose to fight this government in an effort to regain your lost rights and liberty; but with the majority so blindly obedient to it you will most likely end up dead.

People are so blindly ignorant that they actually think things change when power shifts between the Republicans and Democrats. Tell me, and be truthful, when have any of your lost freedoms been restored after a switch in which party controls government. Maybe Einstein was right, maybe insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

And now we are witnessing the consequences of generations of institutionally indoctrinated ignoramuses in action. We have people who are angry because they have not have gotten their slice of the pie called happiness; to them meaning equal wealth. We have people who think that it is okay to sacrifice their rights for the overall common good. We have people who blindly seek to the very entity responsible for all these things, answers to these things.

We have a system that thrives on our fear; for fear gives them the power to pass more laws that they promise will end all our woes. And as they grow stronger, so do those who enforce those laws. Just as the government no longer cares about securing our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, neither do our law enforcers.

Sure, they might serve a good function…if that’s all they did. But they don’t; they stop of for traffic violations to collect revenue for their bosses; they stop and hassle people just because they look suspicious, (so long probable cause); and they enforce all laws equally; whether the law itself is unconstitutional or a violation of our rights.

More importantly, if you question them, or their authority to enforce such laws, you go from average Joe Blow to America’s Most Wanted. They will cuff you, they will tase you, and they will choke or shoot you to death if you resist too much. There is no reasoning with them once you question the law, or their authority to enforce it; they are trained pit bulls defending their master – government.

So yes, I support the protests against the police in the deaths of Rayshard Brooks and George Floyd; even though Brooks was obviously drunk. While the officers may have committed these crimes, I don’t fully blame them; I blame the system they are part of. Sure, they should be punished, but as long as the system exists, as it currently does, these type police brutality crimes will continue unabated. Either that will happen, or the people will get their way; the police will be unfunded, and chaos will rule the streets.

So yes, I am in agreement with protecting the abuses of power by police; but not just in regards to those abuses of power against blacks; I support it in defense of the abuses of power against ALL the people, their rights and their liberty.

What we are seeing now has evolved from protests against the abuses of power by government, it has turned into the consequences of generations of false history and socialist indoctrination, leading to the destruction of all that this country stood for; it’s history.

These punks have declared war upon all that a true lover of liberty believes in, and the sad thing is, that is exactly what the system wants. They not only want us at each other’s throats so that we don’t focus our outrage upon them, they actually want us to start killing each other. They want this because they know that there will be a part of America that clamors for them to do whatever it takes to restore peace and order; which will bring in the loss of whatever remaining liberty we had.

You can CHOOSE to keep blaming the other party; you can CHOOSE to keep blaming each other; you can CHOOSE to riot, loot, and confront the police, but as long as you keep thinking that we NEED this system or else we will perish; if you keep thinking that one party is better than the other one; if you keep voting and obeying whatever law suits their current whim, nothing is going to change for the better.

We are not each other’s enemies, the system is our enemy. The only time someone becomes the enemy of someone else is when they come after their life, their property, their liberty, or their rights; then they can be treated as having declared war upon you; i.e. kill them. (See Locke’s Second Treatise, Chapter 3, Section 18).

What we are witnessing at this very moment in time is the consequences of a long string of choices coming back to haunt us all at once. There is a slim chance we can make our way through this; if we abandon all previously held beliefs about government, about the rights of others, about what equality means, and if we unite together and demand that government stick to the purposes outlined in the Declaration of Independence; and then have the courage to lynch a few of the son’s a bitches if they don’t.

If we can’t do that, then the future looks bleak…very bleak indeed. Trump can’t fix what’s wrong in America and neither can Biden; only we can if we would just learn the truth.

P.S. If you think this was long, I deleted almost 1-1/2 pages dedicated to the Supreme Court to shorten it up…

On November 3rd Americans are set to go to the polls, (or maybe just mail in their ballots due to Covid), and for the 59th time vote for their choice as to who will become their president for the next 4 years. I think y’all know how I feel about presidential elections; they are a joke because nothing really changes afterwards; yet still they are fascinating to watch and study after they’re over.

For instance, if you are of voting age now you probably remember the whole Russia collusion story that dominated the last presidential election; but are you old enough to remember the hanging chad fiasco in 2000 when the Supreme Court stepped in and decided the election in favor of George W. Bush?
I’m old enough to remember when Ronald Reagan ran for president; how some people said an actor, (even though he had served as governor of California), did not have the credentials to become president. Even the movie Back to the Future made light of this when Doc Brown asked Marty McFly who was president. Marty answered that Ronald Reagan was president, and Doc Brown jokingly asked, “The actor?”

If you ask me, they are all actors, playing parts in a script we, as the voters, have no control over. All we see is what happens on the stage; the debates, the TV ads, the speeches, and the campaign rallies – we never get to witness the backroom dealings, the maneuvering and scheming that goes on; are these things that make the study of presidential elections so fascinating to me.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I think most Americans are stuck in a state of perpetual now. By that I mean they don’t think about what happened six weeks ago, six months ago, six years ago, and definitely not six decades ago. I think the attention spans of most Americans is such that they can’t recall what their candidate said six months ago; which makes the people easy to manipulate because candidates can waffle, or flip flop on the issues without ever being called on it.

I bring that up because I’ve been hearing people, and pundits, say that this upcoming election is likely to be very contentious. Although I’ve heard it numerous times before, both sides are claiming that this election may determine the future of this country; either we will keep Trump in office and he can continue with his promise of making America Great, or we can put Joe Biden in office and return to a state of normalcy; whatever the hell that might mean.

But that is right now, or at least in our immediate future; what about the past? How many of you are old enough to remember when a certain peanut farmer from Georgia was President and Iran was holding Americans hostage, and how ‘supposedly’ the Iranians were so scared of what an actor from California might do that they released their hostages the moment the actor was declared winner of the election? I use that as an example only to show that people tend to forget the past; unless of course it is their own past; then they call reliving it reminiscing.

Like it or not, history defines us. Just as your personal history made you into the person you are now, the history of your country made us into who and what we are today – and it deserves a thorough and truthful study if we are to understand how we got to where we are today.

It truly amazes me how naive people can be, to think that they can cram 200 plus years of history of their country into a 9 month class in high school; let alone the history of the entire world; regardless of the fact it is called U.S. or World History. What you are getting is, at best, a brief synopsis of the events that defined us, or the world; and more often than not the entire story is not told; for as the saying goes, “The victors of any conflict get to write the history of the conflict.”

Do you honestly think that history books would have called men like Jefferson, Washington, Adams and Henry patriots had they lost the War for Independence? America may have eventually become free and independent even if she’d lost the revolution; but then again slavery would have eventually ended on its own had the Civil War not happened either.

To me it is not so much the wars, or the elections, that I find fascinating; it is the thoughts of those participating in these events; their motivations, their beliefs, the things they stood for, as well as the maneuvering they utilized to achieve their goals that I find to be a fascinating study. And if you think you’re going to get all that in a history textbook, written by someone who wasn’t alive at the time, and probably biased, you’re sadly mistaken. The only way to get at the truth is to dig…dig deep.

People, as I said, are stuck in a perpetual now, thinking that what is going on now is either unique, or is of more concern that what happened years…decades ago. They see rioting and looting going on and they seek to place the blame for it somewhere; and will vote accordingly.

Yet it wasn’t that long ago that we were in a similar situation; after the verdict was handed down acquitting the police officers accused of beating the Rodney King. Los Angeles erupted into rioting, and at the same time we were in the middle of an election cycle that saw the incumbent George H.W. Bush trying to hold on against Bill Clinton.

Whether we are witnessing history repeat itself is a question only time will tell; but it does show how a thorough knowledge of our history disproves the belief that what is happening now is unique; which brings me right back to the subject of whether or not this particular election is going to be contentious.

People think that every election is contentious because they are personally motivated by their position on the issues and their support for whomever is running. But aren’t they all contentious if that is the only criteria used? If you want to see contentious, go back and do a thorough study of the election of 1800 that saw Thomas Jefferson become our 3rd President. There is a wonderful book called A Magnificent Catastrophe, written by Edward Larson that goes into great detail the political maneuvering between the Hamiltonian Federalists, the supporters of John Adams, and the rising Democratic Party which had formed behind the political ideology of Thomas Jefferson; not to mention how the election was finally decided after numerous ballots in the House of Representatives to resolve it.

That was contentious exemplified, and the closest we’ve come to that in recent years is the Bush/Gore election of 2000; but that time it was the Supreme Court that decided the election, not the House of Representatives.

If you really want to undertake a study of a contentious presidential election, study the events leading up to the election of Abraham Lincoln; where Stephen Douglas almost singlehandedly destroyed the traditional Democratic party; the party of Jefferson. An argument could be made that if Stephen Douglas had not been so pig-headed and determined to win the Democratic nomination at all costs we could have avoided the Civil War.

Unless you’ve studied that period of American History extensively, you probably don’t know that Lincoln was the first sectionally elected president. By that I mean that Lincoln was elected president solely upon the votes of the Northern States; not a single Southern State voted for Lincoln.

Prior to the election of Lincoln, and the subsequent Civil War, there were Democrats both in the North and the South; although they were predominantly stronger as a political entity in the South. The contentions between Democrats and the up and coming Republicans were so strong that William Seward, who would go on to become Lincoln’s Secretary of State, said, “The Democratic party must be permanently dislodged from the government.”

Of course he would say that, he was a Republican after all; it would give the Republican party, which was also sectional, complete control over the government; allowing it to subjugate and oppress the Southern States; which it did with near impunity during the period of history known as Reconstruction.

The newly formed Republican Party had been growing in strength and solidarity for four years, and going onto the election of 1860 their rhetoric and animosity towards those in the South had created the perfect conditions for a purely sectional conflict between those in the North and those in the South.

At the heart of the issue was not the existence of slavery in the South as some would believe, it was whether slavery should be allowed to spread into new territories and States. As evil as slavery was, it was merely an issue used by both sides of the debate for the purpose of increasing their power in Congress and by diminishing the power of those who opposed them.

The Democrats wanted to allow a territory, or State, to be able to decide for itself whether to permit slavery to exist because the slave owning States predominantly held to the Jeffersonian line of thinking that the federal government should not interfere in the internal affairs of the States; plus slave owning States typically voted Democrat, which gave them more power in Congress to hold off the Whigs, and later the up and coming Republicans.

The Republicans opposed the spread of slavery for the same reason; to maintain their control in Congress AND, (and this is important), because they wanted newly admitted States to be free of indentured laborers to make it a place that was populated primarily by white European settlers; in short, they didn’t want blacks living among them.

This dispute dates back to at least 1820 when the Missouri Compromise was reached, establishing the 36° 30′ parallel that would divide slave owning states from free states. Slavery itself dates back to the very first settlers to this country and both those who fought the war for independence and those who drafted the Constitution chose to refuse to take any steps to end it; which could have prevented the Civil War.

In 1777 Massachusetts, which would later become the hub of abolitionism, would declare, “…we have such a sacred regard to the union and harmony of the United States as to conceive ourselves under obligation to refrain from every measure that should have a tendency to injure that union which is the basis and foundation of our defense and happiness.” (Source: Massachusetts Legislature letter to Continental Congress) In short, Massachusetts said, “We aren’t going to support anything that might piss those guys in the South off.” Those who drafted the Constitution did pretty much the same thing, ignoring the issue of slavery because to address it would doom their consolidated government to an almost certain defeat.

So slavery continued to exist as an institution in America, regardless of how evil an institution it was. The Constitution, as written and ratified in 1789, does not mention slavery, and it does not mention blacks or whites. The Constitution states things such as ‘other persons’ or those ‘held in service’; no reference is made to skin color or country of origin.

Although they weren’t as numerous as the Africans held in bondage, there were whites also held in bondage during the history of this country; particularly the Irish who came over as indentured servants until they could pay off the cost of transporting them from Ireland to the U.S.; and they were cheaper than the African slaves, therefore they were often treated much more harshly by their masters. I’ll bet you weren’t taught that in school!

The Constitution itself was, intentionally I might add, muddied on the subject of slavery. For instance, Article 1, Section 9 simply states, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

What that means is that prior to the year 1808 Congress could not enact any law that banned the importation of slaves into America; but it sure as hell could charge a tax for doing so. It also does not prohibit slaves after 1808; it only says that new ones can’t be brought into the country.

Then there is Article 5, Section 2, which states, “No person held to service our labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

Although it does not specifically come out and say it, the first part of that clause infers that it is up to the States themselves to pass laws either permitting or abolishing slavery within their borders. The second part clearly states that those held in service [slaves] were considered property, and if they escaped into a state where slavery had been eliminated, it did not free them from their bondage, and that the state they had escaped to was obligated to return them.

Aside from the 3/5’s clause for determining representation in the House, the Constitution did not address slavery again until it was again addressed with the 13th Amendment. So basically, the Constitution permitted slavery, and left it up to each State to decide for itself whether or not it would allow that institution to exist within its borders.

As far as what the Constitution specifically says about slavery, it treated slaves as if they were property of their owners; no different than horses, cattle or hogs. Yes that is a horrible way to look at the enslavement of men by others, but that’s how the Constitution treated the subject of slavery, and that is the law by which Congress was bound to what they could or could not do about slavery unless the Constitution were modified; i.e. amended.

So, from a purely constitutional viewpoint, Congress, and the Northern States who favored abolition, had no authority to enact laws that prohibited settlers from moving to new territories with their slaves as part of their possessions. Yet they did; particularly when it came to Kansas. When settlers came to Kansas from the South, bringing their slaves, they were subject to harassment and often violence by those who favored abolishment or exclusionism; which meant no blacks at all.

The subject of statehood for Kansas was also the cause of many heated debates in Congress between those who favored allowing a territory/State to decide for itself whether to permit slavery, or whether or not to prohibit it. Although slavery itself is/was wrong, and while those who protested against the expansion of slavery into new territories/States claimed it was wrong; underlying all their noble and honorable words lay the truth – that slavery was just a tool they were using to divide the people and amass more power.

Many of these noble abolitionists even felt that, although slavery itself was evil, that the black men were inferior to them. Some of them lived in States that did not allow free blacks to migrate to; such as Lincoln’s home State of Illinois. Sure, they wanted to abolish slavery, but they damned sure did not want those freed slaves living among them; competing for jobs against the whites.

Such was the political climate, and attitudes towards slavery leading into the presidential election of 1860; the Republicans, for the time being anyway, wanted to keep slavery within the States where it already existed, and the Democrats wanted to allow it to expand to wherever the people of such territories or States decided for themselves it should or should not be permitted to exist as an institution.

I know it’s hard to put aside your emotions on this, but from a purely Constitutional standpoint, the Democrats were standing on solid ground, while the Republicans were attempting to give to Congress powers that they simply did not have. For years leading up to this election those promoting an abolition/exclusionist agenda had been stirring up hatred towards the South; amassing and consolidating their power, often through deceit and less than legal means.

By 1860 they had grown into a solid block of voting power, and were the party to beat in the upcoming presidential election. One other thing, they were purely sectional; meaning the Republican Party did not exist in any of the Southern States. There were Democrats in the North; although they were not nearly as strong as were the Republicans; but there were no Republicans in the South; so this election would be a North vs. South election; the first of its kind in America.

Coming into the 1860 election the Democrats, instead of presenting a united front, were splintering apart over differences in beliefs regarding the issue of slavery in new territories. Stephen Douglas, a northern Democrat out of Illinois, favored the doctrine of popular sovereignty; meaning a territory be allowed to decide for itself whether or not to allow slavery…without interference by the federal government. It was this policy, primarily, that led to terrorism and violence in Kansas.

Douglas was opposed by the Democrats from the South, who supported the recent Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case, saying that the Constitution protected slavery in all federal territories. The Southern Democrats had caucused prior to the 1860 Democratic Convention and came up with a pro-slavery platform which they presented to the convention.

The Northern delegates, standing united behind Stephen Douglas, opposed that platform; instead choosing to support the Douglas position of popular sovereignty. Douglas, and his supporters, refused to budge from their position; feeling that their position was the only tenable one which could defeat whomever the Republicans chose to run for president.

Prior to beginning the Democrats had passed a resolution requiring that for a person to obtain the Democratic nomination they MUST obtain 3/4 of the votes of all the delegates in attendance. When the Southern delegates saw that the Northern ones would not seek to compromise, they walked out of the convention completely and held their own. So what had effectively happened was the Democratic Party had split into Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats.

Divided they stood no chance of defeating whomever the Republicans chose to run against them. However Douglas was so firmly set in his position, and the Southern Democrats felt that their political future and the concept of State’s Rights was threatened so severely by the position held by the Democrats in the North, that the party splintered in two; handing the election to Abraham Lincoln; a person who had held no political office other than one term, ten years prior in the House of Representatives. The United States had just elected its first purely sectional President without a single vote for him by any Southern State; a president who firmly supported an abolitionist/exclusionist agenda.

Douglas was so infuriated with the Southern Democrats that he campaigned in areas in the North were he stood no chance of winning, just to crush out of existence the Southern Democratic Party. It’s ironic that, had Douglas won the 1860 Presidential Election, he would not have served his full term; for he would die on June 3, 1861 from Typhoid Fever. It’s even more ironic due to the fact that the man who did win that election would also die in office; at the hands of the assassin John Wilkes Booth. It almost seems that, no matter which candidate won that election, they were destined to die in office.

The Democrats could possibly have won against Lincoln had they chosen Jefferson Davis, instead of splintering in to two factions and running both John Breckinridge AND John Bell against Lincoln. Davis was a southerner from Mississippi who was well liked and respected in the North, and he could have posed a strong enough candidate to defeat Lincoln; for he would have assuredly taken all the Electoral Votes from the South as well. Had Stephen Douglas not been so intent upon beating the Republicans at all costs, the Democrats could have won, and the Civil War could have been, at least, avoided.

I have left out a lot of the day by day political maneuvering that went on in the election of 1860 for fear of boring you. What I have presented is enough to, hopefully, show you that people living today have no idea of what a truly contentious presidential election is like. Not only did the election of 1860 rip the Democratic Party in two, it ripped the country in two as well; leading to 4 long years of war, and forever ending the belief that we have government by consent of the people; for Lincoln proved beyond a doubt that if you do not consent to governments authority over you, it will use the sword, the cannon and the bayonet to compel your obedience to it.

That was the ultimate legacy of the 1860 Presidential Election; not what ultimately would happen to slavery; which would have ended on its own peacefully if they would have just let it.

What I have tried to do is to provide you with the history of that election in as unbiased a narrative as I could; sticking as much to facts as possible. Yes slavery was an issue that was at the forefront of the 1860 Presidential Election; yes the differing opinions on it led to the division of, not only the Democratic Party, but the Union itself. But it was protected by the Constitution, and the Republicans used it as a weapon against the States that practiced it to gain control of the government; which in turn led the Southern States to secession, and the end result, the Civil War. Slavery was crucial to the Southern economy, and to its ability to hold its own against the industrial North who sought to impose high import tariffs to benefit Northern business interests; tariffs which hurt the South much more than they did the North. In support of this position is the fact that when the Southern States seceded New York City considered secession as well; for their textile mills relied upon the cotton the Southern States produced; their sympathies were for the South, not the radical abolitionists in states like Boston.

I will never say that slavery was not an issue leading up to the Civil War; it was. What I will say is that it was not why the South seceded; they seceded because there were two competing trains of thought as to what purpose government should serve; whether government should be kept limited as the founder of the Democratic Party Thomas Jefferson believed, or whether it should be used to help American, (meaning Northern), business interests as did Jefferson’s arch rival Alexander Hamilton.

Slavery was just one piece of a very complicated puzzle that has as its origin the very drafting of the Constitution itself. Had the Constitution been written in such a way as to clearly protect or seek to abolish slavery the Civil War could have been avoided. But it was written in such an ambiguous way so as to make the Civil War all but inevitable. Had that document clearly come out stating that its ultimate goal was to end slavery, it would never have been ratified and the South would never have been part of the Union in the first place; making a ‘civil war’ all but impossible. Also, any invasion by the North would therefore have been seen as an act of war by one hostile nation against another.

History is never cut and dried; it is often complex and takes a lot of study to understand. It is when emotions come into play, rather than a careful examination of facts, that history loses its value and becomes meaningless. But history is what made us who we are, and for it to be of any use it must be studied in an unbiased and emotion free mindset. All that matters is the truth; and you have not been taught the truth about slavery, the South, or the Civil War.

What I hope I’ve done here is provide a slice of the truth; an appetizer so to speak, so that you might seek out the remainder of it for yourself. For history does have a way of repeating itself; and if that is the case, we may very well be on the cusp of repeating it again as we watch as monuments dedicated to both Confederate leaders and founding fathers are being torn down and defaced at an alarming rate.

You can only push a people so far before they push back. The North learned that in 1861; please don’t make the same mistake they did. They may have won the war, but at what cost? Please, learn from history before future historians write that your ignorance of it led to history repeating itself in 2020.

When people reach that age in life when they can retire there will always be those who say that you should enjoy your retirement. Let me tell you something; that’s easier said than done. Oh, I don’t miss work at all; not with the direction things were taking there. My problem isn’t boredom either; I have plenty to do around the house to keep me busy. My problem is that I simply have way too much time on my hands to think about how fucked up this country has become; while there seems to be nothing I can do about it.

You may have noticed I am no longer writing an article a day like I was before; I can’t even bring myself to finish my series on the evolution of political parties. It’s not that I don’t have anything to say, it’s that I feel like throwing my hands up in the air and screaming, “What’s the use?” It’s not quite desperation, but it’s pretty darned close. I simply want it all to end; not my life if that’s what you’re thinking; but I want to see the people of this country wake the hell up and retake their liberty from those who have stolen it from them, or I want to see them suffer so badly that they wish they’d done so while they still had the chance.

I know that may sound horrible; like I’m an evil person. I’m not, I want people to enjoy life; but at the same time I want them to leave me alone so that I can enjoy mine as I see fit. After all, isn’t that what liberty is all about; being free to live your life as you please without others getting in your way; so long as you leave others free to do the same? Isn’t that supposed to be what America is all about – LIBERTY? My God, we have a huge statue in New York Harbor dedicated to it; but then again it is closed due to the Covid outbreak; proving that liberty itself has left the building…so to speak.

I’d be willing to bet that there is nary a soul alive who would not say that they don’t like freedom; I mean, only a crazy person wishes to have their freedom taken away from them, right? Then why is it that so many people sit back and let that freedom be taken from them, bit by bit by bit without doing a damned thing about it? Do they do it because it is their political party that is doing the taking? Or, could it be that they have no clue as to what true freedom is?

Freedom means you are able to make your own choices in life, but it also entails that you accept complete and total responsibility for the outcome of those choices; and that’s the part of freedom that scares the bejeezus out of people. People want a safety net in case they fuck up and make a bad decision, or are unable to provide for all their wants and needs; that’s why they’ll tell you they want freedom, but the moment they are told that there is a crisis or state of emergency of some kind, they give up that freedom without hesitation.

Just look at what happened when the people were told there was a pandemic; most of them bought into that story hook line and sinker, and the obeyed the stay at home orders without question, and put on their face masks like the willing little sheep they were; regardless of how many people told them that face masks were ineffective, and even bad for them.

People don’t want freedom, they want comfort along with the illusion of freedom; the reassurance that their government has their best interests in mind. If they can believe that, then they can justify, (at least to themselves), that everything government does is necessary for the overall public good. This illusion of freedom is like an inner tube in the open seas, and they cling to it as if their lives depended upon it.

I think people may realize, deep down in their subconscious anyways, that the system they place so much trust and faith in, is totally corrupt; evil even. But they keep those thoughts buried away; otherwise they would lose all hope.

Just look at our elections for crying out loud; we have two, sometimes more, candidates seeking a certain office, and all they do is promise to do this, promise to do that; hoping that the promises they make are enticing enough to get a majority of the people to vote for them. What do you think would happen if a candidate got up and said, “I think government has done enough for you people, it’s time you start doing things for yourselves.” How many people do you think would vote for them? Here, let me answer that for you…NOT VERY MANY!

People don’t want freedom, they want a nanny; a nanny with the power to steal from others and give to them; or their particular causes. So what you end up with are opposing factions arguing over how to divvy up the spoils, so they can be used to benefit those who voted for that particular candidate, or political party. If you were a student of history, (which most aren’t), you would see that this division between two opposing factions, or ideologies, is what led to the Civil War.

The difference between then and now is that in the years leading up to the Civil War the Southern Democrats sought to keep government as small as they possibly could, while retaining the rights of the States, while the Republicans sought to exert a great deal of power to tax and spend to benefit those who supported their candidates. Today, both parties seek to toss out tidbits from the table, while not opposing each other too much on the big issues; the ones that end up devouring the liberty this country was supposedly founded upon.

Let me ask you a simple question; which party stands up for your rights today; not just some of them, all of them? If there was such a party, which there isn’t, then your rights would come and go; like waves gently rolling up the beach and then receding back into the ocean. All I see are my rights receding further and further away; and that’s because neither party cares a whit about your rights, or mine. All they care about is the survival of the system; which is why they keep you fools fighting amongst each other instead of uniting to fight against them.

Every problem this country faces, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, is not because of the policies enacted by either the Republicans or the Democrats, it is because the people don’t know why governments are supposed to be established among men; or they know but are too cowardly to stand up to government when it does not serve that function.

So, either you vote for candidates because you think that the promises they make are the reason government exists, or you know that government is overstepping its authority, but that you fear standing up to it because it is too big, too powerful. What it boils down to is either ignorance or cowardice; the question is; which of those describe you?

I’m gonna hit you with one of the most powerful quote’s I’ve ever read; and I was just hit with it this morning, “When an honest person, ignorant of true history, is presented with documented evidence of historical facts, they must choose to accept those facts or cease to be honest!” I don’t know who originally said that but my friend Mike Gaddy posted it on Facebook today, and he got it from another friend, Jamie Bell.

But think about how truthful that is; if you claim to be honest, then how can you maintain your honesty when you reject the truth simply because it causes you cognitive dissonance, or because it threatens your belief systems? The simple answer is, you can’t; either you stand for the truth and are an honest man, or you choose to accept and defending lies, making you yourself a liar.

Which are you?

Let’s use these ongoing protests and riots as an example of how people willingly avoid the truth. What caused these protests to happen? People will tell you they began when George Floyd was murdered by the police. That is only partially true, as people are killed almost weekly by the police; so why did this particular killing spark all these protests?

Oh, that’s right, it was because George Floyd was black and the cop was white; which shows that there is systemic violence and abuse by law enforcement against the black communities. Again, if we’re being honest, the data proves that not to be the case; more whites are killed every year by cops than are blacks. Yet, if you look at the homicides that occur across the country, you WILL find that blacks are more prone to be killed than whites; but it is usually other blacks who do the killing.

Why don’t those lives matter? Could it possibly be that in the case of cops killing blacks they can point a finger at the system, while if they were to look at the black on black crime they would have to point their fingers directly at the image staring back at them in a mirror? Oh, we can’t do that, can’t blame ourselves; we gotta have someone else to point our fingers at.

That, unfortunately, leads me to something else that I see happening with increasing frequency; the destruction and defacing of historical monuments. What we see happening now with the destruction or desecration of historical monuments was a long time in the making; these protests were just injections of steroids to sentiments and animosities that date back to at least the mid to late 1860’s.

It all boils down to the issue of slavery. To those who are ignorant; who don’t know why the Civil War really happened, slavery is, and forever will be what the North fought to end; making the South, and all those statues dedicated to their leaders, the bad guys. I could provide a dump truck full of documents to prove that the North did not fight the Civil War to end slavery, but people would not read them; or if they did, they would ignore what they had to say. This leads us right back to the question of whether anyone in America today has any intellectual integrity at all; or are the all willing to support and defend lies because to admit they were wrong is too painful?

Now before those of you on the political right stand up and say, BRAVO, I have a few words for you as well. For all you who proclaim to support the thin blue line, who say that if people would just obey the law they wouldn’t run into problems with law enforcement, I have but one thing to ask you; What exactly do you think the Colonists at Lexington and Concord did if not stand up to law enforcement when they came for their guns?

What exactly is it that law enforcement does if it isn’t the job of enforcing the laws passed by government? The law can be either good or bad; it can either protect your rights and liberty or it can diminish them. Jefferson once said that “…law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

If the law serves to defend your rights and liberty, then the law is just and demands your obedience. If, however, the law seeks to diminish, or abolish, your rights and liberty, then the law is unjust and it demands your resistance. Just because some politicians put down a bunch of words on a piece of paper that say you can’t do this, you can’t do that, does not make it binding if what is written upon that paper violates any of your rights or your liberty.

So, who is it that enforces these laws that government enacts if it isn’t ‘law enforcement?’ If they do the job of defending your rights and liberty, then by all means, support the hell out of them. If on the other hand they are oppressing you, denying you the ability to exercise your rights and enjoy liberty, then it is your obligation to speak out against both them, and the bastards who wrote the laws they enforce.
What right does any government have to:

-Say you cannot leave your home;

-Obtain a permit/license to hunt or fish;

-You must wear a facemask;

-Cannot open your business;

-You cannot bear an arm for your own defense unless you have first obtained permission from [government];

-Must wear a seat belt;

-Cannot collect rainwater;

-Cannot open a lemonade stand on your property; etc. etc. etc?

What right do they have to enact laws, executive orders, royal decrees; call them whatever you want, that deny you your rights and liberty? The answer is none, the only authority they have is the authority you allow them to exercise; and if you allow them to have unlimited power, they WILL become tyrants; which they already are; and law enforcement is just their enforcing arm.

There is systemic abuse and oppression in America, but it is not confined to black communities; it is systemic against every man, woman and child living in this country. The race issue comes into play because people have not been taught the truth, and their ignorance keeps them pointing fingers and arguing with each other instead of directing their anger towards their real enemy – the entire system; from the lawmakers all the way to the law enforcers.

What would you have us do Neal, revolt? Well, Nancy Reagan gave us the answer, although it was in the wrong context. The former First Lady once said, “JUST SAY NO.” It’s that simple. According to statistics there are around 325 million people living in the United States. There are far fewer elected officials, and there are roughly 60-70,000 cops in America; putting the ratio at roughly 450:1 in our favor. If we just said, in a united voice, NO, what could they do; arrest or kill us all? Who would they govern if they did?
They need us far more than we need them; that is assuming we want to live a life enjoying perfect liberty. If we want to live as slaves, dependent upon the benefits government provides, then we do need them; but I sure as hell don’t. The only power they have is the power you allow them to have. We wouldn’t need to revolt if we all united together in opposition to them; although a few lynching’s here and there might serve to send the message more effectively.

Think about the money in your wallet or purse; what gives it its value? Ever stopped to ask yourself that? It’s just paper; well a clothe fiber actually, but still. The only reason people accept that money in exchange for goods or services is because they put their trust and faith in it. Well it is similar to government; we let it get away with all kinds of shit it isn’t supposed to because we still put our faith in the system; regardless of which political party happens to be in control of it at the moment.

If you believe, with all your heart and soul, that our system was designed to secure your liberty, then why hasn’t it done so? There are two reasons and the first of which is that you, and those who came before you, let government get away with overstepping its authority and restricting your rights and liberty.

The second reason is because the system itself sucks; it was designed so as to leave the people no recourse for abuses of power. They can arrest, jail or kill you for breaking the laws they enact, but where is your power to arrest, jail, or kill them if they violate the Constitution or infringe upon your rights? Hmm, riddle me that batman!

Patrick Henry, numerous times I might add, warned about this deficiency in the proposed system of government he was arguing against. On June 5, 1788 Mr Henry stated, “The Honorable Gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our Government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

Think about that, would you? In 1860 seven states id assemble in convention and recall their delegated power, and Abraham Lincoln raised an army against them; upon which 4 other states joined them in recalling their delegated powers.

So tell me, and be honest, what power have you to punish those who write, and those who enforce the laws? Every once in awhile, when the people become angry enough, the system will offer a sacrificial lamb to appease the people’s anger; but the systemic violations of our rights and liberty continues.
As long as the people in this country stand divided; pointing fingers at each other over race, gender, sexual preference, political party allegiance, and a whole host of other ideologies, the system wins. The answer, as Clive Shelton in Law Abiding Citizen said is to bring the whole fuckin’ diseased, corrupt temple down…

For Lysander Spooner was right, “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.”

The system is rotten, it is diseased, it is corrupt, and all the issues we fight amongst ourselves over are just symptoms of that; but instead of removing what ails us, we put a band aid on it and hope that things will get better after the next election cycle.

In closing I’d like to leave you with two passages from the immortal speech given by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775. The first states, “Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

The final is the passage that elevated Patrick Henry from simple lawyer to Patriot extraordinaire, “What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

What would YOU have; comfortable lies and bondage, or a painful truth and the chance to regain your birthright of liberty? I think I know the answer for most people, and that is why I feel so down in the dumps; for I see no hope of ever recovering that which has been stolen from us when the American people are too afraid of the damned truth – their government sucks, it is evil, it needs to be torn down, and people need to start accepting responsibility for their wants and needs; and to stop blaming others for their failures in life.

It is with a heavy heart and an almost all consuming anger that I watch the history of this country being rewritten, monuments desecrated and torn down, and the principles that made this country great, flushed down the toilet because people find them offensive.

Who gets to say what is and what isn’t offensive these days, the mob? Is that what America has become, a country where a group of crybabies can get together and whine about something they don’t like and demand that it be removed from their sight? Has America become so sensitive to the feelings of the mob that we are willing to sit back and watch our entire history and our heritage erased by a bunch of ignorant fools who couldn’t name the first 5 Presidents of the United States, or how many rights are listed in the 1st Amendment?

Honestly, if this is what America has become, I’m ashamed to call myself an American; and you should be too.

You see, it’s not just the taking down of Confederate Flags, the removal of statues that upsets me, although that plays a big part in it, it is the fact that this is a full on attack upon the freedom of speech by people who allow their feelings and emotions to dictate what others can say, do, or display. Once you open that Pandora’s Box there is no end to this kind of censorship of things that offend people.

In front of the BBC, (the British Broadcasting Company), stands a statue of author George Orwell. Behind the statue, engraved in the wall are the following words: If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Orwell was almost prophetic in his predictions, or warnings, if you will, of society in his novel 1984; but I’m guessing those who are behind this movement to erase history and reshape this country into some Utopian dreamland have never read Orwell. If they had, they would most likely have come across the following, “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” (Source: 1984, Part 2, Section 5)

What these people fail to realize is that while they may be able to take down images they don’t like, ban or burn books they don’t like, the history remains. You cannot erase history, you can only erase people’s memory of it but there will always be those who seek to pass it on from generation to generation.

The problem is not so much that history, along with our entire belief systems, are being erased; it is that so few actually care. When history is erased, or rewritten, people lose their sense of self; what it once meant to be an American; and that is the real tragedy.

History is not always pretty, and it is not always comfortable; but the one thing you can count on is that it is honest. That isn’t the case when it is rewritten or erased to fit a politically correct agenda; and if you lack concern for the truth when telling the history of your country, then you yourself cannot be trusted because your belief systems are built upon lies.

Almost daily now the news reports on another piece of history being taken down because someone, somewhere, found it offensive; and it is not limited to images or statues depicting those who served in the Confederacy anymore; Founding Fathers statues are being defaced and vandalized, and just the other day they took down the statue of John Sutter which had stood outside the hospital named after him in Sacramento, California.

When will this madness end; when there are no statues and monuments recognizing those who lived in the past left standing? Why stop there? Why not abolish the flag; for it flew over a country that recognized slavery as a legal institution for 75 years prior to the Civil War? Why not tear down the White House and U.S. Capital buildings; for they were built with slave labor? Why not burn the Constitution and Declaration of Independence; for they were written by men who owned slaves?

See where I’m going with this?

Are we going to sit back and watch as our history, our culture, and our belief systems are plowed under by angry mobs that, probably, don’t have the faintest understanding of the history of the country they are tearing down? Their ignorance is such that they fail to realize that one of the principles this country was founded upon is the people’s right to say, or display, things that others might find offensive. You throw that away and you throw away what it means to be free.

Good or bad, history is what made us who and what we are, and when we lose that sense of self, of what it once meant to be an American, then you deserve what happens if you let that happen.

-To those who are caving into the pressure of these mobs I have but one thing to say; SHAME ON YOU!

-To those who are spreading lies and calling it truth, SHAME ON YOU AS WELL!

-And to those whose precious feelings might be hurt by gazing upon images that offend you, I would like for you to try and let the following words sink in to your pathetic skulls:

It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more… than a whine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what.

(Stephen Fry, Published in The Guardian, June 5, 200

“Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation…”
Matthew 12:25

An acronym is defined as a word which is formed from the first letters of a phrase, such as NATO; which is formed by the first letter of the words North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Governments are fond of acronyms, even when they abbreviations don’t form a word, such as in FBI or CIA…try pronouncing those as words if you don’t believe me.

However, the military is a bit more creative in their use of acronyms; at least the acting service members are. There is one acronym in particular that I am quite fond of, for it describes the current state of affairs in America; that being the word FUBAR. FUBAR is formed from the words Fucked Up Beyond All Repair; which is why I think it is an apt description of America today.

If I were to ask you what separates humans from the animals, how would you respond? Besides having opposable thumbs, what separates us from most animals is our ability to think; to reason; to analyze facts and data and form conclusions on them. If it weren’t for that ability we’d be no better than a herd of cows sitting in a pasture chewing their cud!

Yet if you could find it within you to take a few steps back and watch humans as a species, you would see that in times of crisis they often act no better than animals; reacting emotionally, or at least instinctively, to perceived threats and conditions without utilizing the very thing that separates them from the animals – their brains.

The funny thing about the brain is that, even though it is capable of amazing feats, it still has to be taught how to think; how to process information. We don’t exit the womb with the ability to speak, write, or complete complex mathematical equations; those things are the end result of the process known as learning.

I have often pondered the question of how otherwise intelligent people could fall for so many lies and so much oppression without any kind of resistance. Look at us as a species; we’ve conquered gravity and made it possible to circumvent the globe; we’ve produced technology that allows us to speak to people on the other side of the planet; and we’ve built some amazing devices that make simple day to day living much easier. Yet we can’t see how badly we’re getting fucked over by our government. If you ask me, that’s absolutely mind boggling. I suppose the only thing that matters is having fun or standing for a cause that makes you feel good about yourself; the truth that’s staring you right in the face can go to hell, right?

The thing about the human mind is that it is somewhat like a computer, it reacts according to the programming that is entered into it. However, unlike a computer, (that cannot reason or question), the human mind can do these things if it trained to do so. If, on the other hand, the mind is not trained to question, to analyze, to reason, then it is no better than a PC that is acting according to the programming it gets when it is built.

If you are taught from the moment of birth to become an obedient little drone; a good law abiding citizen; you know, the whole sit down, shut up, follow orders routine, then by the time you have grown up that has become conditioned into you and it is next to impossible to break through that conditioning. You may be able to argue and debate certain issues, as long as you remain within the confines of the construct created by your education; i.e. conditioning, but if you venture beyond that construct your mind is probably not capable of processing what you’ll find; i.e. cognitive dissonance.

If you want to see a film adaptation of Cognitive Dissonance, watch The Matrix. Watch the scene when Morpheus explains the true nature of the Matrix to Neo and Neo says, “No, I don’t believe it; it’s not possible. STOP! Let me out, let me out.” Upon being freed from the construct, Neo vomits on the floor due to the shock of having been exposed to a truth his mind was not ready to handle.

People want solutions to the problems that plague us, but they want solutions that fit comfortably into their pre-packaged conditioning; meaning they want to work within the confines of the system, when it is the system itself that is the cause of most of our problems. Try telling people that the answer to their problems won’t be found by giving the system more power; that the answer lies in either reducing the power held by the system, or abolishing it altogether, while assuming responsibility for their own wants/needs, and you get that classic, “Are you out of your fucking mind” look, or the, “What would we do without law and order” response.

The other day, while listening to a live stream on my friends Facebook page, I heard Bart Stewart use a term that has stuck in my mind ever since; Auto Correcting. Auto Correcting refers to something that is capable of fixing itself if left alone to do so. Our Founders, not all, but some of them believed in the concept of individual liberty; that man was both capable and responsible for doing what was in their own best interests, while also capable of respecting the rights and liberty of others.

If you want my honest opinion, 99.9% of all our problems in this country stem from a lack of understanding of, and a lack of respect for liberty. Unqualified liberty is the ability to do as you please without constraint. However, rightful liberty, as Jefferson explains, is “…unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” Rightful liberty can be summed up by saying, “You leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone.”

Liberty is not something that is found in parchment documents; although it may be mentioned within them. Liberty is not something that is bestowed upon people by governments; governments are established to preserve it; because liberty existed before governments did. There is a natural hierarchy in place that people seem to have forgotten; or possibly forsaken. Man came into existence by the will of his Creator. That Creator bestowed upon man certain rights, among which was the right to liberty. Man, then, creates government; which can either serve to secure and protect that liberty; making it GOOD government, or it can seek to limit and restrict those rights and liberty; making it BAD government.

The problem people have with liberty, and I don’t think many of them are consciously aware of this, is that it entails personal responsibility. Let me explain that as simply as possible. If you don’t eat, you starve to death. If you don’t grow or hunt your own food, you don’t eat. When you accept individual liberty as your personal ideology you also accept complete and total responsibility for all your wants and needs. If you want to eat, then you’d better learn to hunt, to farm, or to find a job so that you can purchase the food that keeps you alive. If you want clothing; the same thing; learn to sew, or find a job so you can purchase it. And here’s the kicker; if you want security, learn to defend yourself and what is rightfully yours.

And that, in a roundabout way, brings us to what’s happening in America with these riots, protests, and the takeover of 6 city blocks in Seattle.

How did these riots/protests begin; I mean what sparked them? It was footage of Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on the neck of George Floyd for 8 minutes 46 seconds; resulting in the death of George Floyd. I’m not entirely certain that this was not just another false flag designed to stir shit up, but I’ll leave that discussion for another day. But to whet your appetite, if you’re into conspiracy theories; how and why did piles of bricks magically appear the nights before those protests/riots started? Ponder that, would you?

Now I’m gonna say a few things that are probably going to upset a few people, but this is how I see it; and as long as we still have some semblance of freedom of speech, I’m gonna say them. These protests/riots began due to the media and culturally held belief that there is systemic, targeted violence against blacks by law enforcement. The facts, however, prove otherwise.

In 2019 three hundred seventy white people were shot and killed by law enforcement, compared to 235 blacks being shot and killed by law enforcement. In 2018 the numbers were even more disproportional, with 399 white people being shot by cops compared to 209 blacks. Going back a year further we find that 457 whites were shot and killed by cops, compared to 223 blacks shot and killed by cops. So the numbers do not support the argument that the violence is targeted; systemic possibly, but not targeted along racial lines. What is proven is that cops kill both whites and blacks; so where is the public outcry when a white person is gunned down, or choked to death by the police?

Next up on my list of ways to piss people off is Black Lives Matter. Don’t all lives matter? I bet if there was an Asian Lives Matter group, or a Hispanic Lives Matter, no one would say a damned thing. But even suggest that a White Lives Matter group be established and the cries of RACISM would reverberate throughout the cosmos!

Have you ever been to the Black Lives Matter webpage? I have, and I’ve read what they claim to be about. This is what Black Lives Matter has to say about their mission, “Four years ago, what is now known as the Black Lives Matter Global Network began to organize. It started out as a chapter-based, member-led organization whose mission was to build local power and to intervene when violence was inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.” Here, go look for yourself:

Black Lives Matter Mission Statement

Read the last 5 words of that sentence again. It does not say that their mission is to intervene when violence is committed by blacks against blacks, only when violence is committed against blacks by the state; meaning more often than not, the police. If you look at the statistics for murder in most of our large cities you would find that a large number of them are committed by blacks against other blacks; they are killing each other and Black Lives Matter conveniently ignores this; choosing instead to ignite passions over incidents in which the police kill one of them. I’m not saying the police aren’t killing blacks, they are; but they’re also killing whites too; so where’s the outrage for all the whites who have been killed by law enforcement?

Now let me throw liberty back into the mix. Remember, liberty entails individual responsibility for the choices you make. If you choose to join a gang, or engage in criminal behavior, then the odds of you dying because of that choice go way up. I’m not saying George Floyd deserved to die the way he did. In fact, they should throw Derek Chauvin on the ground and let someone kneel on his neck for 8 minutes 46 seconds; see how he likes it.

But the fact that Black Lives Matter ignores the staggering number of black on black murders; simply because they do not fit their agenda, is a bit disingenuous to me, if not flat out hypocritical. If black lives really matter, then EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM SHOULD, NOT JUST THOSE KILLED BY COPS!!!
Moving on to the Seattle Autonomous Zone, I think that I have been misunderstood in my opposition to it. I think that some people find my position on it hypocritical because I make such a loud noise about liberty and standing up to tyranny in government. Let me try to explain why I do not find my position hypocritical.

While I do not go so far as to say that we should defund, or abolish the police entirely; I do believe they need to be reigned in; given a less intrusive role in ‘law enforcement.’ I say that based upon a few things. First of all, Thomas Jefferson once said that the law is often but the tyrants will, and always so when it violates the rights of an individual. A good number of law enforcers don’t think about whether or not the laws they are enforcing violates the rights or liberty of individuals; their job is to enforce whatever laws are passed by government. That shit needs to stop; they need to be held accountable for violating both our individual rights, and our liberty. The problem is the system protects itself; and if a good cop does try to speak out, they face retribution, or termination.

Is there an answer to that problem? Yes, but I don’t think people are going to like it. The answer lies in liberty. Recall me saying that liberty is self correcting? Well if the law, and law enforcers, would just get out of the way, the people could, (if they were so inclined), defend themselves and their property as they saw fit; eliminating the bad apples from society. Oh, and should you choose to be one of those who do not take measures to arm yourself, or defend your property, then you will become a victim; which is also a part of the self correcting nature of liberty; eliminating the weak from the gene pool.

Told you that you wouldn’t like what I had to say.

But THE LAW gets in our way. The LAW says we can’t use excessive force just because someone is trying to steal from us; the LAW says we cannot use deadly force unless someone has physically broken into our homes and is threatening our lives; the LAW says we cannot carry a weapon on our person for our own defense unless we obtain permission from our masters; the state.

See what I mean, the law keeps getting in the way of our ability to defend what is rightfully ours, and who enforces the law if it isn’t law enforcement; i.e. cops, county sheriff, highway patrol, and State Police.

I’m going to share a passage from Bastiat’s book the Law that I’ve probably shared dozens of times before; but maybe this time it might make more sense. The passage reads:

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

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

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

If there is not a cop standing on my front porch 24 hours a day, watching over me and my possessions, then the right of self defense reverts to me; the person in whom it was originally lodged; and I can use it whenever, and under whatever circumstances I deem the situation warrants. Someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, they’re dead. I’m not asking them what they’re doing, I’m not dialing 911, I’m not firing a warning shot; I’m putting a round right in their heart and one in their forehead for good measure. End of story, cased closed!!!

See, that’s the ugly truth about liberty that people do not want to accept; you cross the line from respecting the liberty of others and you have declared war upon them; and I believe it was that prick William Sherman who said, war is hell. If you declare war upon me, my rights, my family, or my property, then you get what you deserve; and the law needs to stay the fuck out of my way; y’all can come collect the body/s afterwards.

That’s how it should work anyway, but the law, and its enforcers, get in the way; preventing liberty from self correcting; preventing justice from being served by those who hold the ultimate authority in any nation; the people. You may call it vigilantism; I call it justice handed out personally.

And if you think people shouldn’t be vigilantes; if you think they should not take the law into their own hands, then WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU CALL THE SEATTLE AUTONOMOUS ZONE?

These are armed citizens telling the system that their laws no longer apply; that they will make and enforce their own laws within the territory they have taken over. They claim to be apart from the city of Seattle, they claim to be protesting police violence, they claim autonomy; which means self-government. Fine, then govern yourselves; provide all the things you think government should provide; and since most of y’all are leftist leaning, that means your duly chosen government should provide you with food, shelter, and protection. Let’s see how well that works when you don’t have a tax base you can rape and pillage of their money to fund those services.

Be autonomous; go right the fuck ahead; see how long before your little hippy love in implodes; and just as Venezuela has imploded due to socialism, so will your little commune. But whatever you plan on doing, you better do it fast; rumor has it that the Hells Angels are coming on July 4th to crash your little block party; and since you are autonomous, don’t look to the police to come help you when your ‘country’ gets invaded.

Listen, I support the principle in what they are doing, but I do not support the actions they have taken; not to mention the utter hypocrisy of BLM and the fascist tactics of Antifa; which in and of itself is oxymoronic. As far as I’m concerned they are doing this for the publicity; they don’t have what it takes to make it on their own, or when adversity comes knocking.

I have had people compare the Autonomous Zone to secession; which I don’t believe it is. I think it is the armed takeover of property that does not belong to them. Secession would have been if the occupants of those buildings within this ‘so-called’ Autonomous Zone had gathered together and decided to form their own Autonomous Zone, Free State, or whatever. No, this was an armed takeover by thugs with an agenda; nothing more, nothing less; and you’ll never convince me otherwise, regardless of what they themselves say about their goals.

They could just have easily stayed home and declared that they had seceded from the city, or the Union for that matter; refuse to pay taxes, do drugs, do whatever they wanted. But that wouldn’t have drawn the media attention taking over 6 city blocks has. Besides, had they seceded at home, (kind of like how people self quarantined now that I think about it), their mothers probably would have booted their asses out of the basement and told them to go find someplace else to live.

They have said that their resolve is strong, that they will defend what they have taken. We’ll see if the Hells Angels or Police come and try and break up their little party. My guess is that when they see their friends skulls getting cracked, or lying in pools of blood on the street beside them, they’ll scatter like the cockroaches they are. Sure, they may get off a few shots; even kill a few; but they aren’t prepared, literally and mentally for an assault against them; and when it comes, (and it will come eventually), their resolve will melt just like ice on a hot Texas day.

Again, let me make it absolutely, Abundantly, PERFECTLY clear, that in theory I support what they are doing. I do believe that the system; both lawmakers and law enforcers, do not give a shit about us, our rights, or our liberty; and that something, some kind of pushback or uprising needs to happen if we ever want to see freedom again in America. However, that said, what these idiots in Seattle have done is not the answer.

I mean honestly, they took over 6 city blocks right next to the capital; if they’d had thought this out, did a little pre-planning and reconnaissance they might have scouted out a location that included a few chain grocery stores or maybe a big box home improvement store like Lowe’s so that they could grow their own food from seed instead of having to beg for donations from the world outside their love fest.

I’m sorry, if you support them and what they are doing, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one; for I’m not changing my mind on it. I support the cause they have hijacked for a little media attention, (their minutes of fame), but they need to remember something. There was another little autonomous zone somewhere in Texas I believe, and when the STATE had had enough of them being autonomous, they burn them to the ground, killing not just men, BUT WOMEN AND CHILDREN TOO. That’s right, this little autonomous zone was called Waco.

But they were mostly white, so their deaths don’t matter…right?

The point is, the system sucks; it oppresses all of us. Unfortunately we only see things from our narrow perspective; based upon whatever class divisions suit our individual fancies. We can be rich or poor, black or white, gay or straight, Christian or atheist; it doesn’t matter; government seeks to oppress and dominate us all.

So long as we keep fighting these stupid fucking petty skirmishes amongst each other, and those in government will keep sitting in their offices, getting richer and richer, gathering more and more power, all the while laughing their asses off at how stupid and gullible the American people are.
Just turn on the TV, have the media tell them what to think, then set people loose and watch while they like a bunch of talking monkeys or stampeding animals. Feed the people crisis after crisis, outrage after outrage, and then tell them that you are there to help, to provide assistance, or restore order, and the people will bow down and lick your boots, and surrender all their liberty to you.

Well not me, I don’t bow down to tyrants, and I don’t fall for people who claim to support one thing, and then by their actions prove that they support something entirely different. I’m old, I’m grumpy, and I’m fed up with the ignorance and abject stupidity of most of my fellow countrymen.

A war is coming America; this may not be it, but it’s a coming nonetheless. You can only push people who love their freedom for so long before they push back. When that pushback comes, decades of pent up rage and frustration is going to be released, and you’ll be standing there in shock asking yourselves; What the fuck just happened?

America is FUBAR, and it will stay that way as long as this system we live under continues to exist. It’s up to you to try and reign it in peacefully, or watch as violence erupts sometime later down the road; and I’m guessing it won’t be THAT MUCH LATER from the sentiments I’m hearing from some people. It’s like what JFK said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”

Keep coming after our rights and our freedom, and keep supporting the institution that takes them from us, and you’ll live to see the day when violent revolution moves from the realm of possibility to the realm of reality; and believe me, you DON’T want that to happen.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock you’re probably aware that protesters have taken over a six block area in downtown Seattle. The area currently under their control spans from East Denny Way on the North to East Pike Street on the South, with Broadway on the West, and 13th Street on the East. The area is just South of the capital and contains one police precinct; which is currently unoccupied.

Those who have taken over this segment of Seattle are comprised of a mix of Antifa and Black Lives Matter who have turned the so-called autonomous zone into a cross between a commune and a street festival. They are armed, but so far they seem not to be overtly hostile towards their neighbors on the outside of their autonomous zone, although they are now patrolling the streets in an effort to keep outsiders, and this includes journalists, out. That may be because local area homeless came in and looted most of the food supply within the area they have taken over.

I have yet to form a concrete opinion on the group itself; I will wait and see what happens to do that; but I do have a few random thoughts I would like to share about them.

Aside from abolishing the police, and it isn’t clear if they are limiting their demand to the city of Seattle or if their call is for nationwide disbandment of all police forces, and that Mayor Jenny Durkan be fired, they haven’t said much about what their ultimate goal is.

What I mean by that is, let’s say that their demands that the Seattle Police Department be disbanded and the Mayor fired – what then? Would they pack up and go home, or would they continue to remain on the land they took from the city?

I hear some people calling this a secession, which in my opinion it isn’t. To me, a secession is a section of the country, whose lawful residents pass a resolution declaring that the bonds which had previously held them to a political association, are broken, and that the seceding party resumes all the rights they had surrendered to become a part of that union; including their right to self-govern.

First of all we don’t know the identity of those who have taken possession of this section of Seattle; they may be citizens of the city, but then again some of them may be from outside the city. We simply don’t know. If they are outsiders, then this comes very close to insurrection; with their having denied the lawful government, (as bad as it may have been), their right to govern within that section of Seattle.

For the time being, officials are leaving them alone; I suppose they will continue this strategy until something happens; such as those within the zone become violent; or run out of food and go out on scavenging runs to areas outside their safe zone; then I imagine the police may take some kind of action, such as rounding them up and arresting them. This in turn might cause a violent reaction by those remaining in the zone, but I think the police would be justified in taking those steps should they begin looting outside their autonomous zone.

Listen, I’m not a big supporter of the police; I think much of what has happened lately can be laid upon their shoulders for abusing the people’s trust, for enforcing laws that deprive the people of their rights, and for simply treating the public as if we were lower class citizens to be herded around like farm animals. I’m not saying all that is true about every police officer on the force throughout the country, but the system is such that the good ones are hesitant to speak out against the bad ones; so the bad ones go unpunished; which is what got us to where we are today, institutionalized thuggery in which the people have no recourse. The system protects itself; and the courts and district attorneys, more often than not, take the side of law enforcement.

That said, these protesters, if that’s what you insist upon calling them, have marked off the boundary of the area they have taken possession of, and everything outside that boundary is still under the authority, and protection of duly elected and sworn in officials. So, if members of the CHAZ, as they have taken to call themselves, go outside the boundary of their autonomous zone, in search of food to loot, then they ought to be treated just like the criminals they are. If they leave and have money to purchase food, then I would consider that an act of free trade between bordering communities, and they should be left alone. But if they attempt to loot or steal, then throw them in jail.

I have heard that the city has shown its cowardice by allowing these so-called protesters to take over a portion of the city, but I think for the present moment their policy of leaving them be might have been the best move they could have made. I’m not agreeing that they should have fought a war to maintain authority within that section of the city; had they done so it would have only added fuel to the fire and most likely would have incited those protests going on in other cities to increase their level of violence and looting. So overall, I think, if they wanted to maintain peace, (for the time being), they made the right decision. There may come a time when violence, or some manner of mobilized force against the CHAZ, may become necessary, but that time isn’t right now as far as I’m concerned.

Depending upon how this plays out, there are three outcomes that could happen. The first is that the CHAZ simply give up and go home; at which time I believe some of them might be arrested and charged for criminal behavior. The second is that force may be used to disperse them; which in and of itself could have two possible outcomes. First they could turn tails and run home, or they could stand and fight; making them martyrs for their cause – which is not the outcome I’d like to see happen.

It’s the third outcome I’d like to discuss in a certain degree of detail. First of all, if these protesters are truly claiming that the area occupied by them is under their control, and that they are free from all outside authority, then I say shut all utilities and services to that area of the city off; let them provide their own electricity and running water; or pay for continued services. Oh, and that would also include shutting off all wifi to the area under occupation; nobody else gets it free, why should they?

Next, and this may sound like it’s an emotional reaction to the matter, I would halt all shipments of food into the occupied area. If they truly want liberty and justice, then let them assume the responsibility for their own survival that accompanies real liberty. Let them grow their own food, or starve – that’s real liberty, and if they don’t like that then there is the possibility that they are pretenders, fakes, frauds, who don’t want liberty; they just want to make a name for themselves on the news. Let’s put them to the test and see what they actually stand for.

I’m almost certain that if this goes on for any length of time without their demands being met that there will be those who bring food and supplies into them. I’m just as certain that there will be men behind these charitable movements; men possibly like George Soros, or maybe Bill Gates. But I think if this thing goes on, people will donate supplies to them just like they give supplies to the victims of natural disasters.

Yet still they will remain in an occupied portion of a city in which they are surrounded on all sides by the very people they call their enemy; in essence, while they may control the occupied territory, they are in fact the ones under siege, as they are surrounded and without any allies.

If this goes on for any length of time, and if their demands are not met, I would urge those within the CHAZ to think about what happened to a compound near Waco Texas that was placed under siege by forces that were hostile towards them. The outcome of that siege did not end well for the Branch Davidians, and the CHAZ ought to keep that in the back of their minds if this protest goes on for weeks…months. I mean, you don’t spit in the face of your enemy and expect them to not retaliate at some point, and these protesters, whether you agree with their cause or not, have spit right into the face of the beast they are protesting against!

As for the groups comprising this CHAZ, I also have a couple of thoughts. First of all, fuck them for defacing monuments and statues of those who are part of our countries history. They have torn down Civil War monuments, and they defaced statues of George Washington and Ben Franklin…so fuck them! You don’t get to erase history simply because it is offensive to you; that crosses a line for me and once crossed makes those who commit such acts my enemy.

I don’t really care if these acts were committed by the Antifa faction of these protesters, or the BLM faction; it is beyond acceptable, and the problem is that corporations such as NASCAR, the NFL, and even the U.S. military are pandering to them. That, to me, is symptomatic of a much larger problem; a lack of concern for historical truth. If you sympathize with this group solely because you believe that the police have oppressed them, then you do not recognize that the police are only part of the entire system that subjugates and oppresses us all.

It would not surprise me if most of those protesting inside the CHAZ are Democrats. Now I don’t want to get into a discussion of political parties; for I think both of them suck, but the primary policy of the Democratic Party is to provide things to people who are in need. This, at least as far as I’m concerned, does two things. First it denies liberty; for with liberty comes responsibility for all your own needs. Secondly it creates dependency; which makes their protest somewhat hypocritical; as they are the ones who, most likely, have relied upon government handouts for most of their lives…and now they want to sever that dependency to defend social justice? Like I said, let’s see how this plays out, but if it goes on for any length of time, I’m betting that their empty stomachs, (especially if this lasts into the winter months), will override their demands for justice, and they will disperse to where they came from, so that they can feed at the government teat again.

As I said at the beginning, I have no concrete opinion upon what’s going on in Seattle right now; and that’s primarily because I’ve yet to receive enough data to form an actual logic based opinion. I do think that there is a good chance this is a media stunt; and by that I mean I think these protesters, although their hearts may be in the right place, are looking more to make a statement, and get a little media attention as well, rather than actually go the distance and lay down their lives for the cause they claim to be supporting. But again, those are uninformed opinions; and I could be proven wrong.

But when our Founders said, “Give me liberty or give me death” they meant every word of it. Let’s see if the CHAZ has that same resolve…I don’t think they do.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every
picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been
renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing
day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists
except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
~George Orwell~

A few days ago I told a dear friend of mine that I was born a Southerner but had the misfortune of having been born in the wrong State. During my 3 enlistments in the U.S. Air Force I had the opportunity to travel to various regions of this vast country of ours; although thankfully I was never stationed anyplace where it got really cold in the winter. Of all the places I was stationed at, or sent on Temporary Duty (TDY) to, I always felt at home in the South; more so than when I was back home in California, in fact. On the other hand, when I was stationed in places outside what we consider to be Southern States I always felt like I was an outsider; someone who didn’t belong there but was treated graciously; while they were secretly wishing that I’d just go back to California where I belonged.

I could never explain why I felt so comfortable in the South, and why I seemed to be accepted among the Southerners, while some from my home State of California hated it down there, and were not accepted to the extent I was. I’m not saying those who lived in the South weren’t warm and friendly towards those who hadn’t been born on Southern soil, they were; but it was the same politeness you would give a total stranger; a tourist. For me it was different, I felt a kinship with them; and I think they may have felt that way too; for I always seemed to ‘fit in’ down there as if I had been born there.

It wasn’t until I began studying the history of the Civil War that I began to understand why.

Prior to all this anti all things Southern madness that is sweeping across the land I’d see a lot of people displaying the Southern Cross, (or Confederate Battle Flag for all you unenlightened folks), and it would be something cool they’d wear on a T-shirt or a hat, a sign of rebellion against authority, or even worse, as a symbol denoting white supremacy. I never felt any of those things when I gazed upon that flag; instead I felt a sense of yearning that permeated every cell of my body; as if that flag were calling to my very soul. That was another thing I couldn’t understand until I began studying the history of the Civil War.

To me that flag represents honor, bravery, loyalty to a cause and a way of life that was under attack at the time by forces that did not understand those who bore it, and didn’t care either. Although I believe the downfall of America began when the Constitution was ratified in 1789, I believe the final nail in the coffin was hammered in with the defeat of the Confederacy in 1865; for it was then that the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were laid to rest forever. It’s all been downhill ever since.

Those who wore the uniform of the Confederacy, and who bore its standard in battle, stood for something pure, something noble; and it wasn’t the perpetuation of slavery either; that is just a lie you have been taught to by those who claim to be providing you with an education. You need to get this through your thick skulls; even if it means drilling a hole in them and pouring it in with a funnel, slavery was LEGAL under the Constitution, and the Supreme Court had upheld that fact in Dred Scott v Sanford in 1857…THREE YEARS BEOFRE THE CIVIL WAR BEGAN!

So even though slavery was an evil institution, it was legal under the Constitution. If that be the case, then weren’t those who fought in defense of that institution fighting to uphold and defend the Constitution, while those who fought against them were the ones who were actually in rebellion against it?

What the South fought for was for the ability of a State to regulate its own internal affairs without outside interference, and for newly admitted States to be able to decide for themselves whether or not they would allow slavery to become an institution within their borders; something radical Abolitionist/Exclusionist Northerners refuse to allow them to do. Not to mention the fact that the South was being drained of its vast wealth by burdensome tariffs that sucked the lifeblood from them to be used to subsidize Northern business interests.

The defeat of the Confederacy forever laid to rest the principle espoused by Jefferson in his first Inaugural Address, “…a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government…” Upon its grave was erected the government sought by men like Alexander Hamilton; one that was used by and controlled by wealthy industrialists, bankers, and business interests; it is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; no matter what Lincoln said it was.

So while my education may be incomplete, I think I can say that I understand both the heritage and the history of the South, and I feel a kinship; an affinity towards it. It is therefore with an overwhelming sense of dread and dismay that I watch as all things related to the history and heritage of the South are torn down, defaced, and denigrated by people who don’t have a clue as to what they represent. It makes me physically ill to watch it, yet I am powerless to get people to see the truth; that no matter how much they disagree with what those things represent, you simply can’t erase history by toppling a few monuments and hiding from the truth. All I can say is that George Orwell must be rolling in his grave as a modern day Ministry of Truth rewrites and perverts the history of the South and their just cause.

It is with those sentiments/feelings in mind that I watched the mid-day news on my local NBC affiliate yesterday, (something I should know better to not do), that I saw the Botox Queen herself, Nancy Pelosi, stand and say that the monuments in the Capital building showing the likeness of men like Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis should be removed; for their represented treason. I was so incensed when I heard those words that I’m surprised my increased blood pressure did not cause blood to pour forth from my eyes and nose. I immediately got online and sent the Speaker of the House a piece of my mind on that. Yet I feel the topic is worthy of a bit more discussion.

I think treason is one of those words that is bandied about by people who don’t truly understand what it means. Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution states, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” The dictionary defines it as: the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

Did the South levy war against the North? Aside from the shots fired upon Fort Sumter, (which was in response to a provocation by Lincoln’s attempt to resupply it), the only ones levying war against the other was when Lincoln raised an army to invade the South. The South acted in self-defense; as would any sovereign nation when foreign troops invaded them to subvert and subjugate their legitimately established system of government.

Was the South considered enemies to the North? Well according to the speeches of certain key Republicans prior to the Civil War, the Southern Democrats were already enemies whose beliefs and culture were under attack by them. It would seem to me, (but then again I actually study and think about history), that the South was the one that had seen war levied against it; militarily, economically, and politically.

In a speech given to the Confederate Congress, April 29, 1861, Jefferson Davis spoke the following words, “We feel that our cause is just and holy; we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honor and independence; we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms. This we will, this we must, resist to the direst extremity. The moment that this pretension is abandoned the sword will drop from our grasp, and we shall be ready to enter into treaties of amity and commerce that cannot but be mutually beneficial. So long as this pretension is maintained, with a firm reliance on that Divine Power which covers with its protection the just cause, we will continue to struggle for our inherent right to freedom, independence, and self-government.”

Do those sound like the words of someone who sought to become an enemy to the North, or one who sought to topple their government? No, they do not. In fact, they sound quite similar to what the Colonists wanted from England when they issued the Declaration of Independence; the ability to determine for themselves as to how they should be governed. Is it so difficult for people to understand things these days? The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive their just authority from the consent of the people, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

The compact which was the Constitution was an agreement, not between the government and the governed; rather it was an agreement between the people of the sovereign and independent States to form a system of government. Government was created by the consent of those living in the States, and it continues to exist only because people continue to consent to its authority.

Three States had included, in their Declarations of Ratifications, clauses that said they retained the authority to revoke their consent to the government they were consenting to; Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia. If that authority was present for those three states, it was present for all of them; for the government being established could not have more power than those who created it; lest you want to also state openly and candidly that it is superior to the will of those who created it; i.e. tyrannical. After all, what other word would you call if it a people, or any portion thereof, were left without recourse if the government they had participated in establishing sought to subvert, subjugate, and oppress them?

Even Lincoln himself said as much back in 1848 when he spoke to following words before the House of Representatives, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit.” (Source: Lincoln’s War With Mexico Speech, January 12, 1848)

If the Southern people only wanted to be free of a government they felt no longer represented them, if they only wanted to be left alone in peace to govern themselves, and if Jeff Davis was chosen to be the President of the government they sought to establish, why was he not tried for treason after the war ended; after all, he had been captured and held in federal prison for 2 years; so they had plenty of time to do so; if in fact he was guilty of it.

The reason they did not bring Davis to trial for treason is best explained by former Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, “If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one.” Secession is merely the revocation of a sovereign state’s consent to the compact that bound them to the Union; much like the Declaration of Independence was an act of secession by the 13 British Colonies. Of course the government would seek to call them treasonous, for governments require subjects to govern, and if the people were given a choice to live with or without government, most would choose to live free of it. Well, that used to be so, I’m not so sure about people today.

That brings me to my final thought. This morning I read an article my friend has posted on his website The Federal Observer in regards to the pardoning of Jefferson Davis by President Jimmy Carter back in 1978. From what I’ve learned about Davis, and his time in federal confinement, (which is due to the fact that I have sought to learn more than what was taught to me in school), is that Davis must have rolled over in his grave when Carter issued his pardon.

A pardon is defined as the act of being forgiven for an offense. To his dying day Jefferson Davis never felt that the South had committed an offense; he felt that the law supported the right of a State to secede from a voluntary Union; that it was not, as Madam Botox said, treason.

During his time in federal confinement the subject of a pardon came up, and Davis was opposed to being pardoned; he wanted a public trial where he could lay out for all to see the justification for secession; for he knew that in a trial it would be held that secession was not treason. Let me repeat that, HE KNEW THAT IN A COURTROOM POPULAR OPINION WOULD HOLD THAT SECESSION WAS NOT TREASON!!!

Hell, when the Southern States seceded New York City considered seceding too, and joining the Confederacy; for they not only relied upon the cotton being sent to their textile mills from Southern Plantations, they also agreed with their justification for doing so. After all, New York was one of those 3 States that had included wording in their ratification statements saying that the people of a State could resume the powers of government they were agreeing to by their ratification of the Constitution, “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness…” (Source: New York Declaration of Ratification, July 26, 1788)

I see all these monuments being torn down or defaced, I see how professional sporting institutions such as the NFL and NASCAR, and even the U.S. military with their considering renaming bases named after Confederate leaders, and all I can do is weep for the loss of history and the pandering to those who do not understand what they are doing to their country.

George Orwell, author of the classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, once said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” All one has to do is to look at what is happening in this country to understand the truthfulness of that statement.

If political correctness and the feelings and emotions of the ignorant are to determine what is historically accurate, then we are doomed; because history can then be rewritten to suit the popular agenda, and it has lost its value as both a tool to learn from past mistakes, and as a remembrance of what ‘actually’ happened in our past.

I know it is futile in saying this, but I ask that people stop what they are doing, (destroying monuments, records, and the truth regarding our past), and think about what will happen to future generations when they have been denied access to the principles and beliefs their ancestors once held dear; what it meant to be an Ameri

On April 9, 1865, at Appomattox Courthouse, Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant; the Civil War was over and Lincoln and his Republicans had won-but at what cost? The South lay in ruins and well over half a million were dead, with many more being crippled for life. In less than a week after the surrender at Appomattox, Lincoln himself would be dead; felled by an assassin’s bullet at Ford’s Theater.

Prior to the Civil War, apparently in an effort to stave off the secession of the Southern States, both houses of Congress had passed a proposed amendment which was to be sent to the States for their consideration. However, this amendment never became part of the Constitution; yet its consideration is important if we are to also take into consideration what happened afterwards.

The Corwin Amendment, named after the Congressman who introduced it, Thomas Corwin, was an amendment that would have made slavery permanent in the United States; but ONLY in the States where it already existed.

With the history of infighting in Congress over whether to allow new States to enter the Union as either slave or slave free States, (beginning with the Missouri Compromise in 1820), you would think that those in the North would realize that slavery in the Southern States was not the only reason slavery was an issue; many in the South wanted a State to be able to decide for itself whether to allow slavery within its borders; not have that decision made for them by Congress as part of the requirements for attaining statehood.

Both President James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln endorsed ratification of the Corwin Amendment; believing that it would end the secessionist movement and prevent a war. Lincoln even addressed this amendment in his Inaugural Address, stating, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service … holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Now if Lincoln was truly the great humanitarian people seem to think he was, why would he endorse a constitutional amendment that would make slavery permanent in the South? Then, towards the end of the Civil War Lincoln saw that some in the South might be amiable to re-entry into the Union, so he issued an Executive Order known as the Ten Percent Plan.

Seeing that the South was most likely going to lose the war, Lincoln switched positions on slavery again. His Ten Percent Plan required of States seeking re-entry into the Union that 10% of the people living within them take an oath of allegiance to the Union, and that they abide by emancipation. This infuriated those on the extreme right of the Republican Party, for they feared that the South could conceivably re-enter the Union with the wealthy Southern aristocracy intact, and in power; and the extremists in the Republican Party wanted to completely dominated the South.

With the status of slavery still in question; as it was uncertain what would happen when the war ended; would Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation hold if it were tested in court, or would it be rescinded; leaving slavery intact in the South. So Congress began debating a proposed amendment to permanently abolish slavery throughout the Union.

I won’t go into why I despise the 14th Amendment as it relates to what it says and does, but I will go in to the fact that it was shoved down the throats of the conquered Southern States as part of Reconstruction. The proposed amendment ending slavery passed Congress less than 3 months before Lincoln was assassinated, but he never lived to see whether it would be adopted or not.

People are taught that Reconstruction was the efforts made by the North to bring the seceded Southern States back into the Union and to heal the wounds of war. Well at least they got one part right, it was about bringing the South back into the Union, but as for healing the wounds of war…it was anything but that.

If you want my definition of Reconstruction is would be the complete subjugation of a conquered people, along with the demolishment of their political institutions and ideologies. As the North had sought to deny popular sovereignty in territories wanting to become States prior to the Civil War, they sought to impose a complete denial of State Sovereignty in those States re-entering the war after their defeat.

If you will recall, one of the requisites for a territory becoming a State was that it right a constitution which would be reviewed by Congress before it was allowed to become a part of the Union. Well this was not necessary in the South as they had once been a part of the Union, with constitutions already having been written. Under Reconstruction the States not only had to rewrite their constitutions, they would be re-written by delegates that had not participated in the rebellion against federal authority during the Civil War…of which not very many native born Southerners could make that claim.

I could go in to great detail of how the North sought to punish and subjugate the South during Reconstruction, but it is enough to say that Reconstruction was basically this, Radical Republicans telling the South, “Listen, you guys left the Union, started a war, and lost that war. Now we’re gonna make you pay. You are unfit to exercise the right to self government; we will govern over you until we determine you are ready to govern yourselves again. Since you are unfit, we will fill your offices with those sympathetic to our views and beliefs. You will hand over your land so that we can divide it and give it to those you formerly held as slaves, and you will have no say in these things.”

Were there moderates who sought a more lenient attitude towards the South? Yes, and Lincoln may have been one of them. In fact, there is speculation that some within the Republican Party were responsible for Lincoln’s assassination because he would have resisted the efforts of men like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner from punishing and subjugating the South. But that is the realm of speculation and conspiracy theories, and has no place here.

A couple more things and I’ll finally move on; leaving the subjects of slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction behind. After the war ended and Reconstruction began, the Union was divided into military districts, overseen by Union Generals. Each general was responsible for ensuring that their district adhered to the Reconstruction policies coming out of Congress; one of which was the election of new State officers.

In Mississippi black men constituted 99% of the Republican vote, yet even those who were well educated and established as free men were being denied office by Republicans. Case in point is Reverend Mr. Futzbugh, a well educated black man who had lived free in the North and had participated in Mississippi’s constitutional convention under Reconstruction. Mr. Futzbugh was upset over the inability of black men to obtain office under Republican run Reconstruction and he wrote a letter to the Woodville Republican stating, “…garbed in the disguise of friends to us, [they] are imposters, and will cause more blood to be spilt than the [Federal acceptance of a Mississippi Government] is worth.”

It would seem that Mr. Futzbugh had seen through the veneer of friendship and caring that the Republicans put on in public, and gazed at the truth; that truth being that the plight of the former slaves had been a political talking point used by the Republicans to further consolidate their strength without really caring about elevating the black man from its state of bondage to true equality with the whites.

The next thing I need to discuss is the Freedman’s Bureau; which established by Lincoln before his death. The purpose of the Freedman’s Bureau was to purportedly give aid and assistance to those former slaves who had been made free after the 13th Amendment was ratified.

Robert Lewis Dabney was a Southern theologian and the Chaplain of the Confederate Army. Sometime after the establishment of the Freedman’s Bureau he wrote a lengthy letter to them, and I’d like to share with you.

First Dabney reminds Chief Howard of the sacred obligation placed upon his shoulders, “Your high official trust makes you, in a certain sense, the representative man of the North, as concerns their dealing with the African race in these United States. It is such that I venture to address you, and through you all your fellow citizens on behalf of this recently liberated people. My purpose is humbly to remind you of your weighty charge, and to encourage you to go forward with an enlarged philanthropy and zeal in that career of benevolence toward the African which Providence has opened before you. Rarely has it fallen to the lot of one of the sons of men to receive a larger trust, or to enjoy a wider opportunity for doing good. At the beginning of the late war there were in the South nearly four millions of Africans. All these, a nation in numbers, now taken from their former guardians, are laid upon the hands of that government of which you are the special agent for their protection and guidance.”

Before I continue with Mr. Dabney’s letter, let me remind you that Thomas Jefferson felt that before the blacks be freed from bondage they be taught the skills needed to survive on their own without becoming burdens upon society. It would seem that Mr. Dabney is reminding the Chief of the Freedman’s Bureau of that fact; that it was his sacred duty to ensure that the former slaves be given the skills needed to make it on their own in the world they had just been freed into.

Dabney continues his letter by saying, “At your back stands the great, the powerful, the rich, the prosperous, the philanthropic, the Christian North, friend and liberator of the black man. It must be assumed that the zeal which waged a gigantic war for four years, which expended three thousand million of dollars, and one million of lives, in large part to free the African, will be willing to lavish anything else which may be needed for his welfare.”

Now I can’t tell if Dabney was being serious or somewhat sarcastic in his comments, but nevertheless he speaks the truth; if the war was fought to free the black man from bondage, then it falls upon those who waged that war to ensure that the black man, once freed, be provided with the means of survival and success.

Yet that is not what happened, the former members of the Confederacy, already beaten down and defeated, their land and homes in ruin, were further humiliated by having their lands taken from them by their conquerors to be given to the former slaves. In a speech delivered in Lancaster, Pennsylvania on September 6, 1865, Thaddeus Stevens laid out his plans for confiscating the land of the former rebels, and giving it to freed slaves, “There are about six millions of freedmen in the South. The number of acres of land is 465,000,000. Of this, those who own above two hundred acres each number about 70,000 persons, holding, in the aggregate, (together with the States, ) about 394,000,000 acres, leaving all others below 200 each about 71,000,000 of acres. By thus forfeiting the estates of the leading rebels, the government would have 394,000,000 of acres, besides their town property, and yet nine-tenths of the people would remain untouched. Divide this land into convenient farms. Give if you please, forty acres to each adult male freedman.”

All I can say about Stevens, and his fellow radical Republicans, is that they were adding insult to injury; rubbing salt into the wounds of a defeated and conquered people. Sure, they wanted to free the black man, they wanted them to have a home of their own, but they didn’t want to have to pay for these things themselves; so they plundered a people even more; a people who had felt that one of the reasons they fought the war was because their wealth was being plundered by the tariffs imposed upon imported goods by the government that had just freed their slaves.

My final comment on this period of the development and evolution of the two political parties in America regards a letter written to President Andrew Johnson in which he states, “The [conquered States section] unequivocally ‘accepts the situation’ in which she is placed. Everything that she has done, has been done in perfect good faith, and in the true and highest sense of the word, she is loyal. By this I mean, that she intends to abide by the laws of the land honestly; to fulfill her obligations faithfully and to keep her word sacredly. And I assert that the [northern States region] has no right to demand more of her. You have no right to ask, or expect that she will at once profess unbounded love to the [Federal Government], from which for four years she tried to escape, at the cost of her best blood and all her treasure. Nor can you believe her to be so unutterably hypocritical, so as to declare that the ‘Flag of the [United States]’ has already usurped in her heart the place which has so long been sacred to the ‘Southern Cross.’ The men [of our section] who make such professions are renegades, or traitors and they will surely betray you if you trust them. But the brave men who fought to the last in a cause which they believed and still believe to have been a just one, who clung to their colors as long as they waved and who, when their cause was lost, acknowledged their defeat and accepted the terms offered to them ―as they were true to their convictions in the one case, they will prove their obligations in the other. Many sacrifices have been demanded of the [conquered States], as the price of [being accepted back into the Union.] These she has made; but she will abase herself for no earthly consideration. She will accept no left-handed alliance. She regards herself as fully the peer in honor, in reputation, in character, and in glory of any other portion of the Republic, and she will never consent to tarnish her name, by inscribing on her escutcheon with her own hand, that she has been guilty.”

I include that because I feel it is pertinent to what is currently happening in America today with the tearing down or defacing of monuments dedicated to the Confederacy. America, particularly Southern America, has forgotten, or never been told the truth, regarding what the Civil War was fought for, and that ignorance has led to these outrages against brave men who fought for a just cause; while the monument dedicated to the two faced initiator of violence against a people who just wanted to be free from the tyrannical power of a sectional political party remains standing. While Lincoln is praised as one of the, if not THE, greatest president ever, monuments dedicated to men who fought under the shield of protection given them by the Declaration of Independence are vandalized and torn down.

It makes me physically ill to watch what is happening in America today when a people, ignorant of their country’s history, allow propaganda and emotions to guide their actions, and to call for the destruction or removal of historical monuments. History isn’t always pretty, but it remains a crucial part of how we understand the present; and to see it being torn down is an offense against all that was once good in this country.