Are Patriots An Endangered Species?

Have you ever heard the saying, “You can’t fight City Hall?” What that implies is that it is an exercise in futility to fight a huge bureaucracy with all its rules and enforcement mechanisms. I don’t know about you, but what that implies to me is that we should just give up; submit to whatever laws government passes and accept that there’s nothing we can do about it.

I’ll admit, for those who cherish their liberty the deck certainly is stacked against us. The government is this huge bureaucracy that has all these rules that we are told we must comply with if we wish to avoid finding ourselves as a defendant in the criminal justice system; and I have to laugh about that justice part when many of the laws they pass do everything BUT provide us with any sort of justice.

Then there is the fact that government has a multitude of agencies, combined with local law enforcement, that go about ensuring that we comply with all these rules they pass which govern almost everything we do. Not to mention the fact that the court system, or at least the judges, typically take the side of government when determining what the law is.

How many of you have ever actually read the entire Declaration of Independence? If you had you may recall that one of the grievances leveled against the King of England was, “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” Again I can’t speak for you, but that certainly sounds a lot like exactly what our government today is doing; yet that didn’t stop our Founders from resisting; it didn’t stop them from revolting against their government either.

It’s funny, so many of my so called conservative friends, and some liberals for that matter, care only about who gets elected to the office of President. They only seem to care that ‘their guy’ sits in the Oval Office and could care less about the fact that government as an entity continues to operate a multitude of offices and agencies that are blatantly unconstitutional.

How many conservatives decry Planned Parenthood and its staunch support for a woman’s right to obtain an abortion? You decry the agency, not the agent in charge of that agency…right? In your opposition to Planned Parenthood you could care less who its CEO is, only that, as an entity it supports something you disagree with on moral or other grounds. Why is it then that you can’t see government from the same perspective; that it doesn’t matter who sits in the Oval Office, government still does things it is not authorized to be doing?

And for those of you on the left, the same could be said about your opposition to entities such as the NRA; you don’t care who its CEO is, your only concern is its support of the right of the people to keep and bear arms; something you seem hell bent on doing away with.

It is both sad and funny that when I mention government people immediately assume I’m talking about either the President or, to a lesser extent, the Congress. While those two branches certainly are included in the general term ‘government’ they aren’t the only things I’m talking about. I don’t think people realize how big an entity their government is.

Your government, as outlined by the Constitution at least, consists only of 546 people; there are the President and Vice-President; the 100 members of the Senate; the 435 members of the House of Representatives, and the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court. But did you know that the federal government employs over 2.7 million people…and that doesn’t include the 1.2 million people currently serving on active duty in our armed forces.

That’s what I’m talking about when I say the word ‘government’, not only those mentioned specifically in the Constitution, but all the agencies created by your government to ensure that you obey the laws it enacts.

Out of curiosity, have you ever done a web search for all the agencies under the Executive Branch? I don’t typically do this, but in this case I’ll make an exception; here is a link to all the Departments under the Executive Branch of your government: https://www.usa.gov/executive-departments. Click on any of them and you’ll find a number of sub-agencies; many of which have the authority to pass rules and regulations that you must comply with or face punishment under the criminal justice system.

Let’s look at just one of these Executive Departments, shall we? For the sake of this discussion I have chosen the Department of the Interior; which is a Cabinet Level position. The mission statement of the Department of Interior states: The Department of the Interior protects and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities.

While that sounds very noble and honorable, let’s look at some of the agencies which operate under the auspices of the Dept. of Interior. Among the agencies which work under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior are the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Let’s just take a few moments to discuss those three agencies. The mission statement of the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM for future use, is, “The Bureau of Land Management’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. Congress tasked the BLM with a mandate of managing public lands for a variety of uses such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting while ensuring natural, cultural, and historic resources are maintained for present and future use.”

The mission statement of the National Park Service is, “The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.”

The mission statement of the Fish and Wildlife Service is, “The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”

Again, on the surface these all sound like noble and maybe even needful things. My question is, by what authority under the Constitution do these agencies exist? I have gotten into many a heated discussion, (okay, argument if you will), with people over the existence of these various agencies. People tell me things like, “Well the Congress passed a law, or the President did this or he did that…” in support of their existence. But it all comes back to the same question; under what authority did those in your government take those actions?

You see, that’s one of the biggest problems in this country, people haven’t read, or don’t care what the Constitution says are the authorized powers given to their government. Had they read that document, and actually thought about what it said, they would have noticed that in Article 6, Clause 2 it states, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land…”

What that means is that for any law passed by our government to have any validity, or authority for that matter, it must be in pursuance with the powers given government in general; and those powers were discussed in yesterday’s article and can be found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Where in Article 1, Section 8 does it give government the authority to establish National Parks, to assume control over the fish and wildlife, or manage the public lands? Simply stated, it doesn’t. The government does not own the land that constitutes the United States of America. The only land the Constitution authorizes your government to exercise jurisdiction over is the 10 square miles for the seat of the government and the land it has purchased from the States for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful buildings. The remaining land is under the control and authority of the various States. (Source: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17)

So again, under what authority do the BLM, the National Park Service, or Fish and Wildlife exist?

Yet these agencies enact all kinds of laws, or regulations if you will, that tell the States and the people how they can utilize the natural resources that are not authorized by any clause within the Constitution; and most people simply comply with these rules and regulations because, ‘you can’t fight city hall.’

Those are just a few of the agencies under one department under the Executive Branch; and there are many more that exercise the same authority and jurisdiction over things that are blatantly unconstitutional, or violate our rights.

Take for instance the National Security Agency and its wide ranging surveillance of the American people. Edward Snowden tried warning you of the extent to which you are monitored and spied upon, and you called him a traitor. Yet who, by virtue of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the real criminal; Snowden or your government?

When I was stationed in Florida I used to go mullet fishing with a friend who lived in nearby Panama City. Mullet fishing is basically taking a large drag net and pulling it into a boat and removing those fish you wish to keep. I recall one time we only caught two mullet, but had a net full of Flounder and catfish. That’s the same principle that is being used by the NSA to catch terrorists; they cast a wide net to troll for information that might lead them to uncovering one or two terrorists…AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PRIVACY OF MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE!!!

In 1975 Senator Frank Church warned about the surveillance capabilities of the government on an episode of Meet the Press, “If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.” That was in 1975 and the technological advances in your government’s surveillance capabilities have only grown exponentially since then.

There is hardly a thing you do today that cannot be monitored or spied upon without you even knowing that spying is going on; a clear violation of the 4th Amendment. Yet people say this is necessary for our protection against the big bad terrorists. I suppose it doesn’t matter to you that Ben Franklin once said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

I don’t care which side of the political spectrum people align themselves with, my only concern is that the specifically authorized powers of government be adhered to and that my rights, IN THEIR ENTIRETY, remain intact. But unfortunately I find myself a part of an endangered species; those that actually care about the rule of law and the preservation of their liberty.

People today, and this goes for both liberals and conservatives, only believe that the ends justify the means. They don’t care how the Constitution is being violated, or how their rights are being violated; they only care that these things are being done to further the agendas of the two political parties.

Right now the political left is crying bloody murder because of the things Trump is doing, yet they remained deathly silent while Barack Obama was equally guilty of violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I’m certain that once Trump finishes his term as President and another Democrat finds their way into the Oval Office that the tables will turn and the Republicans will denounce whoever the Democrats elect for crimes against the Constitution that Trump was guilty of as well.

The hypocrisy of both sides makes me want to vomit or get in people’s faces and scream WAKE UP, STOP PLAYING THE TWO PARTY PARADIGM!!!

People today simply don’t care whether the Constitution, as ratified in 1789, is adhered to; they don’t care whether their rights are routinely being violated; all they care about is whether their causes, the things they think government should be doing continue being done. The only time people become upset is when ‘the other side’ seeks to block or impede the actions of their party. Liberty and limited government are of no concern to the majority of those who are politically active. Even worse, there are those who could care less one way or the other, so long as they have a job, a roof over their heads, foot to eat, and TV or Facebook to keep them entertained.

I’m finding it increasingly difficult to disguise, or hide my disgust for the people of this country. Something written by Thomas Paine back in 1791 pretty much sums up how I feel most of the time these days, “When I contemplate the natural dignity of man, when I feel (for Nature has not been kind enough to me to blunt my feelings) for the honour and happiness of its character, I become irritated at the attempt to govern mankind by force and fraud, as if they were all knaves and fools, and can scarcely avoid disgust at those who are thus imposed upon.”

I may smile, I may talk to people, but if they could read my mind and see my innermost thoughts they would probably turn tail and run for their lives. All I know is that this grand experiment in liberty and self governance has failed, and failed miserably. America is no longer populated by liberty loving individuals; it is populated by people who only care whether they get to elect the slave master of their choice.

People say that eventually America will fall. I say it has already fallen; that the principles it was built upon are buried under the rubble of whatever passes for political correctness and political party ideology. As my friend Jeff Bennett posted on his website The Federal Observer, “The phrase “the Fall of America” suggests some cataclysmic event ended the American Empire which had stretched from Maine to California and Florida to Washington. But at the end, there was no straining at the gates, no barbarian horde that dispatched the Empire in one fell swoop. Rather, the Empire fell slowly, as a result of challenges from within and without, and changing over the course of hundreds of years until its form was unrecognizable.”

The America I live in today is unrecognizable from the America I was born into 60 years ago, and I can only imagine how our Founders would feel could they see the damage we have done to the principles they established this country upon. But that’s okay, as long as your guy sits in the big chair behind the Resolute Desk, you don’t have to face the fact that your government has become a tyrant of far greater proportions than the one our Founders fought a war to free themselves from.

But according to you it is people like me who are the bad guys; we’re the ones who pose a threat to national security or the public good. When on the other hand we, however small in number we may be, think that you’re the enemy due to your ignorance and your unwillingness to face the truth; that your government is evil, it is not your friend, and it certainly does not serve the purposes for which it was established.

But that’s okay, keep believing whatever it is you believe; reality has a way of sneaking up on people and bitch slapping them. I only hope I’m alive to see it when it finally happens to you.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

What Has Become of the Spirit of Resistance to Tyranny?

I heartily accept the motto,—”That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically.
~Henry David Thoreau~

I get the impression that people think that if government isn’t passing new laws all the time it isn’t doing its job. It’s almost like they think government is like some assembly line that churns out new laws every week, and if it doesn’t then something is wrong with it or they’re not getting their money’s worth from it.

While government does imply the power of making laws, those laws have to be in accordance with the purpose for which government was instituted for them to be just and lawful. Our government, or at least your government, for I no longer support it in any fashion, did not up and create itself, it was created by an act of men writing a constitution, and then the people of the States choosing to accept that form of government…AND ALL THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED UPON IT!

The Constitution, as ratified in 1789, was not a document that laid out suggestions for how our government should function, it was a written law that dictated how our government should be formed and what powers it should exercise on our behalf. I find it the epitome of hypocrisy and irony that people take pride in calling themselves law abiding citizens, then turn around and vote for candidates who campaign on issues that clearly violate the Supreme Law of the Land.

Therefore, for any law passed by our federal government to be just and lawful it must be in accordance to both the purpose for which government was instituted and the specific powers granted it by the Constitution. Let’s begin by discussing the purpose for which your government was established.

Whether they were right or wrong, there were those living in 1787 who felt that our young nation would not survive under the government established by the Articles of Confederation; that a much stronger system of government was necessary if America was to survive as a Union. During the debates that eventually produced your system of government various plans were introduced with different ideas regarding both the shape this government might take and the powers which it would be allowed to exercise.

The thing about it though is that no matter how they shaped this system of government they were proposing they had to convince the States and the people to accept it before it could go into operation. So the true nature and purpose of your government should not be based upon what powers YOU think it should exercise, but upon the powers the various ratifying assemblies were told it would exercise.

There were many men, in prominent positions, who opposed this proposed system of government, and those who supported it faced stiff opposition from them. Therefore they undertook, what could only be called, a serious ad campaign to convince the people that the proposed constitution posed no threat to their liberty nor to the sovereignty of the States.

One of the key battleground States was New York, where 3 of the most fervent supporters of the constitution wrote a series of essays which have come to be known as the Federalist Papers. Whether they were truthful in what they wrote, or whether they simply wrote a cleverly designed marketing campaign to convince the people of New York to adopt their proposed system of government is irrelevant. What is important is that the things they said are what they told the people would be the powers given to this government, its relationship to the States, and the purposes for which it was to serve.

With that in mind, let us look at what James Madison had to say about what powers this proposed system of government was supposed to exercise. Madison begins by saying, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.”

When someone says something is defined it typically means that they are specifically listed in no uncertain terms. Therefore, let’s look at what powers the Constitution actually grants your system of government. So without further ado here are the powers the Constitution says your government SHOULD be exercising:

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

-To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

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

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

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

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

-To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

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

-To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

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

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

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

-To provide and maintain a Navy;

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, if as Madison says, the powers delegated to the federal government are few, AND DEFINED, then THOSE are the ONLY powers our government should exercise. But Madison didn’t stop there, he also said, “Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

You can call me obtuse if you want, but that sure sounds to me like it was the job of the State governments to pass whatever laws were needed to benefit the people of this country directly; not the power of the federal government. So why is it that your federal government continues to pass laws which directly affect the lives and liberties and property of the people?

Can you explain or justify that for me? If our government truly does exist by consent of the governed, why is it that people consent to a government that exercises powers it was never given? Is it ignorance on the part of the people; they simply don’t know what powers their government is supposed to be exercising? Is it apathy; they simply don’t care that their government is exercising unconstitutional powers as long as they somehow benefit from it?

Whichever the case may be, the truth is that their government IS exercising powers that are not among those specifically enumerated within the Constitution; which brings us to the question of why laws should be written. The way I see it, laws can be written for but one of two reasons. First laws can be written to support and expand the liberty of those the government represents, or they can be written to limit the liberty of those governed and subjugate them; essentially becoming their master, not their servant. I suppose it is up to you to decide which one is the case in regards to our current system of government.

But before I close I want to leave you with a few other things to consider. First off, the Preamble to our Constitution is a declaration of intent, stating the purpose for which the document that follows should serve. The Preamble to our Constitution states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (My emphasis)

Although I am not a huge fan of James Wilson, (a lesser known Founding Father), I do believe he got it right when he said, “Government … should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.”

You may be saying, “There Neal goes again, talking about liberty and rights.” Well why not? After all, isn’t that one of the stated purposes for which this government was supposedly established; to secure the Blessings of Liberty to those who established it and to their posterity?

People may talk about liberty, about freedom, but I don’t think they really understand what it means to have either; otherwise they would not tolerate the laws being passed by their government. Freedom is defined as, “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” Liberty is defined as “the state of being free within a society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.” Thomas Jefferson defined liberty as follows, “…unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”

Did you get that, unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others? Therefore for a crime to be committed, for a law to be passed restricting certain actions, the lives, liberty, or property of another must be threatened by that action. How many laws do we have which punish people for doing things where there is no victim? Who do I harm if I ride a motorcycle without a helmet or drive my car without a seat belt? Whose life, liberty or property am I threatening if I smoke marijuana inside the confines of my home?

Another thing, how am I fully enjoying the fruits of my labors when a portion of my earnings are being taken from me and given to others who did not sweat or bleed for it? If I were to come to your home at gunpoint and demand that you give me a portion of your paycheck so that I could play Robin Hood and give it to the poor, it would be considered theft. Yet our government does the same thing under the guise of tax funded programs which subsidize those in need. If you refuse to pay your taxes because you disapprove of the ways in which your tax dollars are spent, your government can, and will, come after you. If you resist they can and will arrest you, and if you resist that they can and will kill you.

Do all these things sound like this is the land of the free to you?

Sometimes I think I can almost read people’s minds when I ask them why they continue to support these laws being passed which deprive us of our liberty, and support those who actually go about enforcing those laws. People get this look in their eyes like they are talking to a madman; someone to be wary of or someone who needs to be turned into the authorities because they pose a threat to national security.

How is standing up for ones liberty or demanding that their government adhere to the limits imposed upon it considered a threat to national security?

Have you ever stopped to think about those you call our Founding Fathers; what were they in the eyes of their government? What do you think would happen if the Son’s of Liberty were alive in 2018 and they went about committing acts of destruction like they did in the Boston Tea Party? What do you think the media, or you yourselves would say if they ransacked the homes of government officials or tarred and feathered IRS agents? How would you view them if they resisted agents of the BATF by showing up fully armed, even going so far as opening fire upon them…just as they did at Lexington and Concord?

Those we call our Founding Fathers did not quietly bow down and submit to the laws being imposed upon them which violated their rights. They did not simply follow the orders of those charged with enforcing those laws upon them. They resisted them, and it is because of their spirit of resistance that America became an independent nation.

What has happened to that spirit of resistance; where has it gone? Now I’m not saying that I am openly resisting every law I deem to be unconstitutional, or a violation of my rights. But at least I am aware of the tyranny I am being subjected to, and I am trying to awaken others to it. I am not a mindless zombie that supports this government simply because it promises to keep me safe, or provide me with benefits if I should ever need them.

If you truly loved this country, and the principles it was founded upon, you would take the time, or make it if necessary, to study the period which saw America gain its independence and establish its system of government. You would learn everything you could about why this system of government was originally established, and the powers those who created it promised the people it would exercise. You would learn how, over time, this government began to exercise implied powers, expanding its control over the States and the people far beyond what was originally promised.

But what do I hear people talking about; football, Facebook, some new movie…anything but the fact that their government has become this tyrannical monster that is slowly devouring the liberty it was established to secure. When they do talk of politics it is from the perspective of the two party paradigm; either the Republican view as to what government should be doing, or the Democratic view as to what it should be doing. It is NEVER from the perspective of what the Constitution actually AUTHORIZES government to do.

It you want to be a slave, fine, be a slave; just don’t pretend like you have any idea of what you’re talking about when it comes to the legitimate powers of your government; your ignorance proves otherwise. You know, James Madison once said, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” Thomas Jefferson also said, “…if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be.”

Above all else, our Founders valued knowledge and they cherished their liberty. Most of the people I see today could care less about either, and that is why our country is so screwed up. You can put all your eggs in one basket, so to speak, by placing your all your hopes upon one individual who you elect as president to fix America to your vision of what it should be, but if you don’t adhere to the principles this country was founded upon, America will only continue to sink further into the sinkhole of tyranny. Soon it will become so obvious that even the most ignorant of you won’t be able to hide from it. Just do me a favor when that day comes, don’t ask me why nobody tried to warn you.

As Judge Learned Hand once said, “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”

If you truly loved your liberty to the extent our Founders did you would NOT elect those who sought to do things which undermine it; and if they did happen to do those things you would rise up in unanimous opposition to them.

That is the spirit that made America great, and America will never be great again until that spirit returns to the hearts and minds of the people who occupy it. As Patrick Henry said, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.” Until that becomes your primary concern in life, America will continue to be governed by tyrants and populated by slaves.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The Consequences of Ignorance

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
~John Adams~
(December 4, 1770)

John Adams was right, facts are stubborn things; but people can be pretty darned stubborn as well. Take for instance those who consistently refuse to consider any fact that threatens their position on an issue. Of course there are also those who simply don’t care about facts, only how they feel about an issue. So, although facts may remain constant and unwavering they are of little use if people refuse to even think about them prior to forming an opinion on an issue.

Whenever election time rolls around and we are presented with a whole new group of candidates to choose from there always seems to be a multitude of issues that are discussed; things that the people believe to be of great importance for their country at the present moment. These issues could be anything from lowering taxes to doing something about illegal immigration to doing something to defeat some obscure terrorist organization 3,000 miles away. Yet not once in my lifetime have I seen a candidate, aside from Ron Paul that is, discuss the issue of our government doing things that the Constitution simply does not authorize them to do.

That is how they retain their power over us, by keeping us fighting over these smaller issues, while they continue to amass more power; making any chance of us ever returning to a truly constitutional form of government even more difficult. The two party paradigm; this belief that we must choose from one or the other party because that’s simply all that is offered us, is also part of this scheme to prevent us from focusing our attention on the fact that government as an entity is a criminal enterprise exercising unlawful authority and depriving both the people and the States of their sovereignty and rights.

As an example of how this ploy is used against us, let’s talk for a moment about the subject of health care, and what our government should do to make it affordable for all. I remember vividly how my conservative friends opposed the passage of the Affordable Care Act, (or Obamacare if you prefer), during the presidency of Barack Obama. One of the things that caused many of them to vote for Donald Trump was his promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Yet once Trump was sworn in he did not seek to repeal it, he sought to have it re-written so as to leave his indelible signature upon it; and his supporters cried to the heavens when the Democrats opposed him.

What people fail to see is that instead of viewing this issue from a constitutional viewpoint they are looking at it from a partisan viewpoint. Their position is based not upon whether their government has the authority to enact a law making health care available to all, but whether any such law was enacted by their party.

This division in America between left and right, conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats keeps people from focusing on one crucial point; are the laws being passed by our government lawful, or should those passing them be brought up on charges for violating the law which governs them?

And before I continue, I can almost hear the cries of, “But the Supreme Court has ruled these things to be Constitutional.” SO WHAT!!! If the Supreme Court were to rule that the Moon was made of Cottage Cheese, would that make it so? They are men and women, just like you and I. This makes them just as fallible as us and subject to partisan loyalty over principle.

Thomas Jefferson was very wary of giving the Judiciary the power to be the sole determining factor in whether the laws passed by your government were deemed constitutional or not. In fact, in a letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Jefferson declared, “If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please.”

In the course of my studies I have ran across a quote several times; a quote that I have so far been unable to find the source for. However, just because I cannot locate the origin of this quote does not make it any less valid. After all, someone said it, otherwise I would not have found it in the first place. With that in mind, I’d like for you to read, and ponder the following:

A nation that is ignorant of its past is a nation that is ripe for deception and manipulation. Therefore, it is not what happened, but rather what people believe happened which determines the present actions of a nation.

You may believe any manner of lies and deceptions regarding the powers given your system of government, but that does not mean that your beliefs are based upon the truth. If you wish to be both morally and intellectually consistent then your beliefs should align themselves with whatever conclusion the truth forces you to accept. If you choose to go on believing a lie, do not take the moral high ground when stating your opinions on an issue–for you have no moral high ground if you refuse to acknowledge and accept the truth.

In 1940 two brothers, Richard and Maurice McDonald opened a hamburger stand in San Bernadino, California. Today McDonald’s fast food restaurants can be found across the country. Yet although each may be somewhat difference in appearance from the others, they are all part of a huge franchise which is owned and managed by a single entity which consists of the CEO, the majority shareholders and the board of directors.

Why the sudden switch from discussing politics to McDonalds you ask? Well it’s simple, America is similar to the McDonalds chain in that we, as people or as States, may be somewhat different from those living in other States, but we are all owned and controlled by people who wield their power over us from behind the scenes. We are allowed to vote for those who represent us in this system of government we have, but those we elect are accountable not to us, but to those whose names and faces are all but unrecognizable to the public at large.

However, it wasn’t always that way in this country, and that is why the study of history is so vitally important; so that you might recognize how, after many slow and almost imperceptible changes, our government went from one of a few limited powers to one which micromanages almost every aspect of our lives and limits the liberty it was established to secure.

To put it simply, if you don’t care about the history of your country you are simply a puppet that is led around by the nose by those who control what information is spoon fed to you. If you let emotions rather than facts dictate what you will allow your government to do, then that tells me that the law means nothing to you so long as the law is twisted and perverted to benefit your beliefs at the price of the rights and freedom of those you disagree with.

Are you aware that when America first began growing as a country, when immigrants began crossing the Atlantic to live in the newly established Colonies, that America was similar to the McDonald’s franchise in that although each Colony may have been distinct and separate from the others, they were all owned and operated by the British government; i.e. the Crown?

However, those we call our Founding Fathers were a unique breed of men who were not content to let government trample upon their rights simply because it was said that government can, and should do whatever it thinks is in the best interests of those it governs. These men believed that the primary purpose for which ALL government should exist is the preservation of our fundamental rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and that any government that serves another purpose is one to be resisted.

This resistance came in many forms. Some felt that it would be best to petition their government for a redress of grievances. Others felt that they should simply ignore the laws passed by their government that violated their rights. And then there were those who participated in acts of civil disobedience in protest against the laws they felt violated their rights. Ultimately they were forced to decide whether they should submit to a government with unlimited authority, (to bind them in all cases whatsoever is the term used by King George III), or to take up arms and fight for the rights they believed all government should exist to protect.

I wonder how many people have given much thought to who and what our Founders were fighting in the American Revolution. It was not so much the country of England, rather it was an English system of government that had enacted laws which they felt violated their rights. The decision to seek independence was not made hastily; rather it was a decision forced upon them when, as Jefferson said, “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.”

I’d love to see the mental gymnastics people would employ to explain why, (after fighting a long and costly war to free themselves from a tyrant), they would then turn around and establish a system of government that was equally as tyrannical as the one they had just freed themselves from.

The American Revolution, if it was anything, was a war fought so that each Colony could become truly free from a centralized system of government with unlimited power and authority over them. After the last shots of the Revolution were fired a treaty of peace was signed by parties from both Britain and the American Colonies, stating that each State was to be considered as distinctly sovereign and independent from the others. In essence, each State was a nation unto itself; each with their own systems of government, cultures, economies, and political beliefs.

However, in 1787 a group of men gathered together in Philadelphia, some of whom had the idea that a return to a strong centralized government with limited State authority was the only way that America could survive without fracturing into warring nations or become so weak as to prove easy prey to a conquering force. So they wrote a Constitution, proposing a centralized system of government which they believed would alleviate the fears that had slowly been creeping into the minds of many of the people at the time; that America could not survive without a strong governing authority.

Although all this is historical truth, there are three questions you must ask yourself should you choose to decide what powers you personally believe our government should be allowed to exercise.

The first question is: What status did the States hold after the Constitution was ratified? Did the Constitution do away with the belief that each State was sovereign and independent, or did it consolidate all of the States into one indivisible nation under a centralized government? This question lies at the root of whether our system of government is a federal one or a national one. In the former each State retains its sovereignty and independence. In the latter the States lose that sovereignty and independence and become part of a conglomerate of indivisible UNITED States.

The second question you must ask yourself is, how much power and authority was granted to this newly formed system of government. I truly believe that if those who argued in favor of ratification of the Constitution would have explained that the system of government they were proposing were to have the powers that most people today think government should have, that the Constitution would NEVER have been accepted by the people.

You have to remember that one of the reasons the Founders were forced to accept that revolution was their only option was due to the fact that their government had declared that it had the power and authority to bind them in all cases whatsoever. What that means is that whatever the government said was the law, was the law; and that they, (the Colonists), must obey or face the consequence of violating the law. Yet had you done your homework you would have known that Thomas Jefferson once said that “Law is often but the tyrants will, especially when it violates the right of the individual.”

Our Founders chose war over submission to a government of unlimited authority. It is ludicrous to think that after having fought a war to free themselves from such a government that they would turn around and create one just like it for themselves.

And the final question you must ask yourself is, once this system of government was put into operation did that mean that all future generations must forever yield to its authority? I don’t think it did, and let me explain why I say that.

Each State, after voting to ratify the Constitution, issued a statement regarding their States reasons for ratifying it, and their beliefs regarding the system of government they had just accepted. Some States wrote lengthy statements while others wrote statements that were short and to the point.

But, there were some States that included wording that said they had the right to remove themselves from any union of States bound to a central government, should that government become oppressive.

For instance, the Commonwealth of Virginia stated, “We the Delegates of the People of Virginia … Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression…”

The delegates to the New York Ratifying Assembly stated the same premise in much shorter terms, “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness.”

Even Thomas Jefferson, in his official capacity as President recognized that authority. After all, as the primary author of the Declaration of Independence he couldn’t very well have said “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it” then turn around and deny that same principle simply because he was at the head of the existing government. In his Inaugural Address President Jefferson stated, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

Should it matter what a State’s reason might be for choosing to sever the ties which bind it to a Union of States under a centralized government? I don’t think so. If the government created by the Constitution ever became one which proved harmful to the lives and liberty of the people of any State I believe it is the right of that State to peacefully withdraw from the Union. If any segment of the country united together, and began using the coercive power of government to oppress the other segment of the country, this also would justify the secession of those being oppressed so that they may form a system of government of their own that was less inclined to tyrannize and oppress them.

If you put your emotions aside regarding the issue of slavery for a moment, (if that is at all possible) you will see that the Civil War was fought because one part of America felt that the other part, and the government was oppressing them; violating their rights as States to govern themselves as they see fit. The war itself would not have happened had the government simply let the Southern States secede in peace. But as is the case with all governments, none give up their power and authority over others willingly. So Abraham Lincoln raised an army and invaded the South; and that my friends, is the real cause of the Civil War.

Whether we had a federal or a national system of government prior to the Civil War I’ll leave it to you to decide; that is if you choose to give it any thought. But I will unconditionally state that ever since the surrender of the Confederate Army to the Union we have had a national form of government.
I suppose the only question remaining is, how much power are we going to allow this national government to amass before we realize that it is our enemy, and we find the same courage and fortitude of those we call our Founders, and rise up and free ourselves from its tyranny and reclaim our liberty?

It won’t happen as long as you remain ignorant and keep playing the game of two party paradigm. It will only happen when you choose to educate yourselves, or if America hits rock bottom and the people are left with no alternative other than to submit to tyrants of fight for their liberty as their forefathers did.

You can only run from the consequences of your ignorance for so long; eventually those consequences will catch up with you. I just hope that you realize that before the cost of reclaiming your liberty becomes too high in terms of bloodshed and sorrow.

Whatever choice you make, know this, there are those of us out here who grow weary of your system of government being used to push ideas and beliefs onto us that limit our ability to live our lives according to our own dictates. It matters little to us whether tyranny comes dressed in the guise of Republican or Democratic policies; we see behind the charade and recognize tyranny when we see it. There will come a day when you have pushed us into the same corner that our Founders were in when they had to choose whether to submit or to fight.

And tis best you know one other thing; there is no more dangerous animal than one that has been forced into a corner and is fighting for its own survival…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Whatever Happened To Consequences and Accountability?

Often, on Tuesday’s, the company I work for holds Tailgate Safety Meetings. What they are is simply a brief safety discussion on various safety topics; from staying hydrated during the hot summer months to how to lift heavy objects properly. Yesterday we had another one entitled Safety Accountability. Today I had planned on writing Part 2 of my ongoing segment; The Beginning of the End, but something about that Tailgate Safety Training wormed its way into my subconscious and when I awoke this morning I had the basic outline for what I’m about to say.

During yesterday’s Safety Training they defined accountability as: being answerable for your actions. If that is truly the definition of the word, why aren’t those who don’t do their jobs held accountable for it? I ask this question both in regards to the private sector and in regards to those whom we elect to represent us in our system of government.

I can’t speak for every company in the United States, but where I work there are a great many workers who don’t do their jobs and aren’t held accountable for it. The company I work for provides a training program for all entry level positions; I ought to know, I helped in designing it. When I first began working for this company there were 2 line leads whose job included the task of ensuring that the Utility Workers did what they were supposed to be doing. Both these leads retired and their positions were never filled, meaning that there was no one left to babysit the Utility Workers.

Every day at work I witness these Utility workers doing things, or not doing things, which would have led them to being written up or quite possibly terminated had the two former line leads still been working there. Yet nobody says a damned thing about it, and if someone does broach the subject, nothing is ever done about it.

A part of the Utility Workers job is to monitor and maintain the fruit flow into a hopper; but that’s not the only thing they are responsible for. Utility Workers are also supposed to keep their work area clean; but every day I walk through the plant and see fruit all over the floor because some of them are too lazy to pick up a squeegee and a shovel to clean up their work area.

Utility Workers are also responsible for emptying the red baskets which collect the floor fruit and fruit rejected from the lines; but there are days when those baskets go un-emptied until the end of the shift; forcing someone else to come along and do the Utility Workers job for them.

Utility Workers are also responsible for dumping all the trash cans on a line and for putting up the fiber, (or cardboard shells which are made into cases), on the canister lines so that the finished product can be put into cases and then palletized. On any given day the trash cans on most lines are being dumped by anyone from equipment operators to other Utilities simply because the Utility on that line refuses to do their job. The same goes for loading fiber into the traymaker; the Utilities on the PMC lines rarely do it; they leave it for someone else to do for them.

The thing about it is that every Utility Worker, upon completion of their training, signs a form which states that they understand and know what their responsibilities as a Utility Worker are…so there is no justifying them saying “I didn’t know that was part of my job.” As someone who helped come up with the list of duties a Utility is responsible for, I know for a fact that those tasks are among those they are trained to do when they undergo their initial qualification training.

The problem is that there is no system in place to hold them ACCOUNTABLE if they DON’T do their jobs to the standards that are expected of them. What usually happens is that most Utilities, and I say most because there are a few who do make an effort to do what’s expected of them, just stand at the hopper like some kind of gargoyle; watching the fruit fall off the shaker table into the hopper. It says a lot about the character of these people that they can take the pay the company gives them, but not do the work that is expected of them for that pay.

As is the case with society in general, we are all adults and shouldn’t have to be told time and time again what the rules are; what standards we are expected to uphold. But just as it is in society, there will always be those who choose to violate the standards, or ignore them. That is why society has law enforcement; to hold people accountable for upholding the law. But where I work there is no enforcement mechanism when those in positions of authority let the workers get away with doing subpar work. What happens is that the work gets passed on to someone else, or it simply doesn’t get done.

Why train these people in the first place if they aren’t going to be held accountable for doing what is expected of them once they are qualified. Where is the accountability in a system like that? If an equipment operator or mechanic worked with the same work ethics as these Utility Workers the output of the lines would drop dramatically, as they’d just stand around with their thumbs up their asses while everything went to hell around them; and you can bet your ass that if they did THEY would be held accountable for it; so why aren’t Utility Workers held to the same standards as everyone else?

But, just to ensure this doesn’t become a rant about lazy workers, the same principle applies to our system of government. Our government was established to serve certain specific functions which are listed in the Preamble to the Constitution. Among those functions are; to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to those who ratified the Constitution and all posterity.

The Preamble does not grant any power whatsoever; it is merely a declaration of intent; a statement proclaiming the purpose for which the main document which follows it is supposed to serve. The actual powers which were granted to our system of government are listed within the document itself; specifically Article 1, Section 8. If a power is not listed in Article 1, Section 8, then our government cannot lawfully exercise it.

In discussing what powers our government should be allowed to exercise we must take care to not let our own feelings, or desires dictate what we allow our government to do for us. First and foremost the Constitution is a law; it is the Supreme Law of the Land for that matter. But it is supreme only in that the laws passed by our government have supremacy only in regards to the specific powers granted it by the Constitution.

When James Madison was selling the Constitution to the swing State of New York, he stated the following, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

There is no mention of hidden or implied powers by Madison. In fact, his comments make it clear that the powers which were to be given this new system of government were few in number and clearly defined. Then Madison goes on to talk about the sphere of authority, or the separation of authority between the State and federal governments, “The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

That is how the Constitution was sold to those who were assigned the monumental task of choosing whether to accept this new system of government or reject it. Had they been told that there were hidden or implied powers within the document there is a good chance the Constitution would have soundly been rejected; leaving us with the Congress established by the Articles of Confederation.

The problem is, just as in my place of employment, there is no means of holding those we elect accountable when they do not confine their actions to those which are specifically granted them by the document which established the system of government they hold positions within.

Sure, we can vote them out; and we do from time to time; at least we do when it comes to our representatives in Congress. But is that the same as being held accountable for violating their oaths of office? If they pass a law and we violate it, they can fine, imprison, or kill us if we continue to resist their authority. But since we the people originally gave them the authority to enact laws on our behalf where is the reciprocity when it comes to us being able to fine, imprison, or kill them should they violate OUR law which governs their actions?

I’ll tell you were it is, it’s in the Twilight Zone of people’s imagination; that’s where. In the real world there is no accountability for the grossest of violations of both the Constitution and of our rights. Speaking on this very issue Patrick Henry warned of this fatal flaw within the Constitution, “They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law — for there is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.”

If you think of government as a business operation, then those the people elect to represent them are the employees and the people are the supervisors and managers. It was/is our job to ensure that those we elect refrain from passing any law which violates both the spirit and intent of the Constitution.

Have we done so? Well from my perspective I would have to say, HELL NO!!! Instead of caring whether or not our government holds itself to the specific powers granted it; instead of caring whether or not our government works tirelessly to safeguard the public liberty, all we care about is our government doing things for us that, in some cases, it is strictly prohibited from doing.

We as a people have failed miserably in holding those we elect to the standards that are expected of them. Either that, or we care more about the fleeting promises of comfort and security more than we do the preservation of our liberty. In both cases; in my place of work and in our system of government there is no real accountability for those who do not do the job that is expected of them.

And if we, as those who were charged with ensuring those we elect adhere to the specific powers granted them by the Constitution, fail in doing OUR job, then we have no one to blame but ourselves if the system produces people like Hillary Clinton who abuse their power and authority; even committing acts that would land the average citizen in prison.

As my friend Michael Gaddy just now posted on Facebook, “You can ignore the tenets of Rightful Liberty but you cannot ignore the consequences of that decision.” You can choose to cast your votes for those who promise you comfort and security at the sacrifice of your rights and your liberty; that’s what being free is all about. What you cannot do is avoid the eventual consequence of a repetition of that process; and there will come a time that you do regret it; of that I can assure you.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The Beginning of the End (Part 1)

Authors note: This will be a multi-part series as there is simply too much information to be put into one single article that people can wrap their heads around. So I intend to keep each segment as short as possible so that you can digest the things I say in each segment.

On September 3, 1783 the thirteen former British Colonies assumed their status as free and independent States when representatives from both sides agreed to the Treaty of Paris, officially ending the Revolutionary War. The liberty and independence they had fought so hard for would quickly be forgotten and measures taken which would eventually lead to the undoing of all that they had fought to secure for themselves and for posterity.

Yet, for six short years the former British Colonies enjoyed the status of being sovereign and independent entities; free to govern their own internal affairs without outside interference. Sure, they had a Congress under the Articles of Confederation, but unless a unanimous vote of all 13 State Legislatures concurred with the proposed laws sent to them by the Congress, those laws had no force over them. Some say this rendered their central government weak and ineffective, while others were content to be free of an overbearing centralized authority.

You can choose to accept this, or brush it off as fiction, or conspiracy theory nonsense, but there has always been, and there will always be those who seek to exert dominion over the world. If you choose to disbelieve that I suggest you do a bit of research into world history, as isn’t that what all the former great empires sought to do; rule the world? After all, didn’t the Romans, the Persians, and the Ottoman empires all seek dominion over all those they could conquer? Wasn’t what they did the attempt to impose their world view upon others; using force if necessary? Do you honestly believe that time has changed human nature that much that there aren’t those alive today who seek the same power as the empires of old? If you do, then there is no polite way to say this, you are a fool.

The Articles of Confederation, which were our first constitution if you weren’t aware of that fact, did not establish a single entity known as the United States of America. The word united was used as an adjective describing the fact that the States had united together into a confederation, with all power not specifically given the central government remaining with the States.

Under the Articles of Confederation Virginia was as free to manage its own internal affairs as was Massachusetts. In that way the States were similar in status as are the countries of Europe. Germany can no more impose its views upon Italy than Virginia could impose its views upon Massachusetts.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the government it established served two primary purposes: 1) to act as a third party to manage the interaction between the States in things such as commerce and providing for a common currency, and 2) to provide for the common defense of all the 13 States should they be attacked. Everything else which was to affect the lives of the people residing in this United States was left to the States to deal with.

I need to explain something to you about those who seek to dominate the world; they are tireless and they don’t give up; no matter how many times they encounter setbacks in their plans. The winning of the independence of the former Colonies was a setback to them as it established 13 new nations; free to become great and mighty powers unto themselves, and more importantly, free from any centralized governing authority. They knew that if they were to regain any control over America they would have to do away with the concept of 13 independent States and convince the people of this country to unite into one UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; an indivisible nation under a single centralized authority. And if you weren’t aware, that is why I refuse to recite the pledge of allegiance, for I believe that America was not founded as an indivisible nation, that it was founded to be a confederation of separate and independent nations; no matter what form of government it might institute.

One thing those who sought to regain power over the 13 States realized is that it is much easier to control a people if they are governed by a single entity, rather than 13 separate and distinct entities such as the various State Legislatures. So, for them to regain control they had to convince the people that there was a need to untie into a single nation under a centralized form of government; giving that government much more power than the one created by the Articles of Confederation.

If you were to read James Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention you would see that there were those in attendance who sought to do away with the State authority altogether. There were others, such as Alexander Hamilton, who sought to establish what can only be described as an elective monarchy. Although neither of these two things occurred, those who drafted our Constitution did so in such a way that there were cracks in the foundation, or loopholes if you will, that could be exploited to expand the powers of the government they were creating beyond those which were specifically granted.

While I can’t prove any of this, I believe it was done intentionally. I think those who lived during the era which produced our founding documents were far wiser than are the people who live in America today; and if there was one thing they understood it was human nature. I think they realized that, as time passed, the memory of living under a tyrant would pass, and that the people would be more than willing to accept the acquisition of unauthorized power by any government they might establish. The key was in wording the Constitution in such a manner as to appear NOT to be giving the government any undelegated powers.

Still, they faced an uphill battle getting their Constitution ratified, and their system of government put into operation. There were those who saw through the veneer and saw how the implementation of this system of government would undo all that they had fought for in the Revolution.

Of those who spoke out against the proposed Constitution, none were more vehement in their disapproval of it than Patrick Henry. So, instead of going into great detail about Mr. Henry’s objections to it, I simply intend to provide you with a few select quotes from the various speeches he gave in opposition to it.

I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and of America may depend on this: Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America.

Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?

You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.

But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our Representatives, will not abuse the power we put in their hands: I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers? I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny.

My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants

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?

A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your Mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?

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

And, Sir, would not all the world, from the Eastern to the Western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad. Shew me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty? I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.

Where is the responsibility — that leading principle in the British government? In that government a punishment, certain and inevitable, is provided: But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law — for there is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.

I could go on, but I fear I have bored you enough with the ramblings of Patrick Henry; let it be sufficient to close this segment with the following thoughts. It has always been, and always will be the people; who are often weak minded, ignorant, and led around by emotions such as fear, that always acquiesce to measures that lead to the depravation of their most basic rights. And let me tell you something else, once someone gains power and control over a people, they never relinquish it willingly; it always has to be retaken by force.

Consider the things I have just said; ponder them in your hearts, and go out and verify them if you feel the need. But do not ignore them, as in my next segment I will begin to discuss how all that our Founders had fought for began to unravel.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Are You Well Stocked In Knee Pads?

On July 2, 1776 56 men, delegates representing 12 of the 13 Colonies voted in favor of severing the ties which bound them the English rule. Two days later, on July 4th, they formally approved the document written by Thomas Jefferson after it had been edited for grammar and content by both the Committee of Five and the general assembly. This was not something the delegates in Philadelphia took lightly; they knew the full consequences of their actions should they be captured by British forces. As Ben Franklin is quoted as saying, “We must all hang together or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

Thirty-five years later Dr. Benjamin Rush would write a letter to John Adams reminiscing on that fateful day, asking Adams, “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress, to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants?”

The delegates to the esteemed body which gave birth to America as we know it consisted of men of stature and position in society. Some of them owned a great deal of land while others had profitable businesses which provided them with a steady source of income. What would cause those men of status and position to risk their lives and their fortunes for something they weren’t absolutely certain they would achieve?

You do know that in 1776 there were those who remained loyal to the Crown; or their system of government if you want to look at it from that perspective? They viewed those who sought independence as treasonous rebels; some going so far as to flee back to England to prove their loyalty to the Crown. There were also those who didn’t care what happened one way or the other, they were content to sit on the sidelines and watch events unfold; going whichever way the wind blew. So it was roughly 1/3 of the people living in America at the time that forever changed America from a group of British Colonies into a free and independent country.

Although the percentages may have altered somewhat, things haven’t changed much in the roughly two and a half centuries of this country’s existence. There are still those who remain loyal to their system of government; no matter how corrupt and oppressive it has become. There are still those who care little for politics, thus fulfilling the quote by Plato, “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” And finally there are those, like me, who understand the guiding principles of the 56 men who risked their lives so that America might implement a system of government based upon one single concept–freedom.

One year before Jefferson would pen our nation’s birth certificate, The Declaration of Independence, he would write a letter to William Small in which he asked the following question, “Can it be believed that a grateful people will suffer [individuals] to be consigned to execution, whose sole crime has been the developing and asserting their rights?” With the attitudes of most people today, and the general direction this country is going, if Jefferson were to ask that question today, I would have to answer, “Yes Mr. Jefferson, they would.”

Those we call our Founders had exhausted every means possible to convince the Crown to repeal those laws they felt had violated their God-given rights as freemen. They had sent numerous petitions to the King for a redress of grievances; only to have the Crown respond by enacting more laws restricting their rights. They had committed acts of Civil Disobedience in reaction to the oppressions heaped upon them by their government, only to have the King send troops into their cities to enforce his laws.

However, when the King refused to even look at a final Olive Branch Petition sent by the Continental Congress, laying out their desires for a peaceful restoration of their rights and a return to the harmony and peace they had lived under for over a century and a half, they knew that the only means by which they could regain those rights which had been stripped from them by their government was to take up arms against said government, and all those charged with enforcing its laws.

Now I don’t care if you are a Democrat or a Republican, if you were to be honest with yourself you would be forced to admit that your government, (for I refuse to call it MY government any more), is far worse than the one which led our Founders to revolt against it. Our Founders revolted over a few paltry taxes, their inability to coin their own money, and the spark that set off the revolution itself, the Kings attempt to disarm the citizens at Lexington and Concord.

It was not the amount of taxation levied upon that that raised their ire, it was the principle that their government could impose direct taxes upon them that caused such an uproar. Yet today we work for up to 5 months of a year just to pay all the taxes we will be required to pay over a 12 month period…and nobody hardly complains about it, let alone revolts.

How many laws, how many government agencies do we have which violate our fundamental rights as protected by the first ten amendments to the Constitution? We have seen numerous laws passed which violate the spirit for which the 2nd Amendment was written; so that society may be armed sufficiently to rise up against their own government should it ever become oppressive. And oh boy, has it become oppressive! We have seen laws and Supreme Court rulings which restrict our freedom of speech and our freedom to worship God as our consciences dictate. Our private conversations, banking and medical records, and our every action outside our homes are monitored and surveilled to the point we no longer have any privacy.

Yet do American’s complain about any of this? Of course not, they have a roof over their head, food to eat, and entertainment to keep them occupied. Oh, and there is one other small thing they don’t have…the same love of liberty that led our Founders to pick up their guns and fight against their government and its law enforcers.

To protect the identity of someone close to me won’t mention who I had this discussion with, but the other day I had a discussion with someone who was a former law enforcement officer. This individual stated that they were trying to see things from my perspective but was having difficulty understanding my position. He asked me to explain it, so I began quoting from our Constitution and other events in history. This individual claimed he was not familiar with the passages from our Constitution that I referred to. How can it be that someone who had taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution not know what the Constitution says?

I would be willing to bet a year’s wages that if you were to require that every law enforcement officer across the country be required to sit down and take a serious and comprehensive test, gauging their knowledge and understanding of the Constitution that most of them would fail, and fail miserably.

Can you not see that today’s law enforcers are no better than the British Redcoats whose job was to enforce the laws passed by Parliament and the Crown? Can you not see that sometimes following orders means imposing tyranny upon those who are to be tyrannized? At Thomas Jefferson said, “… law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

Does none of this sink through to that grey matter between your ears? I don’t know, maybe your idea of freedom differs from mine. All I can say is that I don’t see the people of this country as being free; at least not in the way that our Founders envisioned freedom.

Can you open a business without adhering to a multitude of governmental regulations; often being required to submit to inspections by agents of the government to ensure your compliance to those same rules and regulations? Can you carry a firearm on your person for your own personal protection without first having obtained permission in the form of a permit from your local law enforcement? Yet I don’t see anything in the 2nd Amendment that mentions a permit for the exercise of the right to bear arms. Can you retreat into your home with the absolute certainty that the NSA isn’t monitoring your computer usage, that it has not turned your smart phone into a listening device to capture your private conversations; thus violating the 4th Amendment? Yet when Edward Snowden revealed the extent of your governments monitoring of your electronic transmissions you called him a traitor and he was forced to flee to avoid prosecution; thus providing an answer to Jefferson’s question to William Small back in 1775.

How can you say that you are free when a portion of the money you earn, not matter how small it may be, is taken from you in the form of taxes and spent upon programs you disagree with, or used for things that are not among the specific powers given your government by the Constitution?

You think voting is going to restore the freedom you have lost? How well has that worked out for you so far? The first step you must take if you want any chance of restoring your freedom is recognizing that government cannot be changed from one which oppresses the people to one which safeguards their liberty at the voting booth. Just as they impose their laws upon us with the threat of jail times and possibly even death, we must use the same tactics against them if we want our freedom back.

Does this mean that some of us might die in the process? Of course it does, but the alternative is to live in bondage to a government that cares nothing about your rights. You have a choice to make America, you can choose to either stop supporting this government and recognize it for what it is–a tyrant–or you can continue living as you do in ignorance and in servitude to an ungrateful master.

Knowledge is the key, and you must seek it out if you ever want to see your freedom again. As James Madison said, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. Learned Institutions ought to be favorite objects with every free people. They throw that light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty and dangerous encroachments on the public liberty.”

I have tried to provide you with that knowledge, and for the most part my efforts have been in vain. People are more concerned with paying the bills, watching sporting events, Facebooking, Twitter, Reality TV, or just getting drunk than they are learning something that might help them restore the freedom they have lost.

Maybe John Adams was right, maybe, “But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.”

You can submit to such a government if you wish, you can participate in choosing who will rule over you if that’s what you desire…not me, I refuse to submit to tyrants, and even though I may not be taking up arms against them, the spirit which led our Founders to declare their independence from a tyrant lives within me. Should ever the time come when those of like mind say that they’ve had enough, and they’ll tolerate no more tyranny, you can guess which side of the battle I’ll be on; even if it means surrendering my life.

For there is one thing I know that you don’t, it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. I know one other thing, if it ever comes to that, and those who cherish their liberty lose once again, I’m going to open a business selling knee pads; because you people are going to need them.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Are You A Patriot Or Are You A Slave?

Patriotism is not something you dig out of your closet and
put on display once or twice a year like a bunch of Christmas
ornaments; it is a lifestyle by which those who value liberty live
and defend that liberty.

Neal Ross
(July 8, 2018)

Every two years Americans undergo the process, (which has assumed an almost circus like appearance), by which they choose who will fill the various elective positions within their government. Some believe that this process means that their voices have meaning when it comes to what laws our government will pass for the next few years. Others say it provides them with a feeling of patriotism in that they are participating in our nation’s democratic process; thereby reaffirming their faith and allegiance to our political system.

Being the perpetual cynic and pessimist that I am, I have some bad news for you…your government is NOT your friend; it is your enemy; even if you don’t see it as such. Any entity, be it a small group of individuals, or a large group of them such as a government, that seeks to restrict the exercise of your unalienable rights is your enemy; and this is true regardless of whether it does so of its own volition or at the behest of a majority of those who support them.

In late 1775 Thomas Paine released his pamphlet Common Sense, in which he said, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.” It’s a shame there is so little of that these days–common sense I mean.

If I could get people to participate I’d love to take a video camera and go out into public and ask people to explain how they would define patriotism. I can almost imagine the responses I’d get; paying your taxes; supporting our troops or law enforcement, respecting the flag; obedience to the law, and all the rest of the hoopla we have been taught to believe defines a patriot.

A few days ago my friend Michael Gaddy posted something on Facebook which I would like to share a portion of with you. Mr. Gaddy stated, “The mantra of a slave: “The legislature passed a law; the courts ‘ruled;’ the president said; the law states.” We Americans have been conditioned to be respectful and subservient to those in positions of authority.

To me that whole concept is mind boggling in that it shows perfectly how people are so easily fooled into becoming a slave when we are, in fact, those with the true power and authority. Sometimes I wonder how people, who from all outward appearances appear intelligent, are unable to read our founding documents and see that we the people hold all the real political power and authority; and whatever power our government holds is granted them by our consent to be governed for certain specific purposes, and certain specific purposes only.

The Declaration of Independence states that government derives its just authority from the consent of the people; the Preamble to the Constitution states that We the People…do ordain and establish this Constitution. Finally, in 1793 the Supreme Court held, “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” (Source: Chisholm v Georgia)

This country is truly in a sad state of affairs because we have elected officials who either don’t know, or don’t care about the limits that document imposes upon them. To make matters worse we have the true sovereigns, the people, who don’t know what the Constitution says, compounded by the fact that they have been indoctrinated into respecting and obeying those in positions of authority. It is the perfect recipe to make for a nation of slaves governed by a small group of petty tyrants.

I’d be willing to bet that very few of you know that in 1972 William O. Douglas, a Supreme Court Justice, held, “Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us?” (Source: Colten v Kentucky, dissenting opinion)

Did those who established this country bow down to the authority of their government, or did they resist every encroachment upon their liberty? It’s a simple question and I’d like for you to take a moment to ponder it before doing a bit of reflection as to what you believe patriotism to be.

If you believe our Founders were patriots, then how can you call those of us today who speak out against the unlawful exercise of unconstitutional power unpatriotic? If you consider our Founders to be patriotic, then how could you possibly call anyone who resists unlawful authority a criminal, a terrorist, or a danger to society?

Were our Founders obeying the law when they rowed out into Boston Harbor and dumped all that tea into the water? Were they obeying the law when they ransacked the mansion of their governor Thomas Hutchinson? Were they the perfect example of law abiding citizens when they tarred and feathered those charged with collecting the Kings taxes? Did our Founders leave their unregistered weapons at home because they did not have the proper concealed carry permits when they marched upon Lexington and Concord to defend their cache of illegal firearms? Our Founders were a merry band of lawbreakers whose only concern was the restoration of their rights as freemen.

Those we call our Founders, (or patriots for the purpose of this article) denied the principle that their government had the right to limit or restrict their God-given rights, and they were willing to die fighting their government when it attempted to do so. That is the mark of a true patriot; not waving a flag on Independence Day dropping a ballot form into a box every other November, and meekly submitting to blatantly unconstitutional authority. In 1775 Patrick Henry declared, “Give me liberty or give me death.” How many of you reading this today could stand up and say the same, and actually mean it?

I have gotten into many a discussion, (okay, argument if it makes you feel any better), with people who say that the principles held by our Founders and the limits contained in the Constitution do not apply in today’s modern world; that they are archaic and old-fashioned. While I disagree, (I don’t think individual liberty can ever be considered archaic and old fashioned), allow me to play devil’s advocate for a minute and say they are right. Does that automatically give government unlimited power to do whatever it deems is in the public welfare?

People don’t seem to grasp the nature of the Constitution; they believe it to be a basic design for a system of government, but without any restrictions upon what power that government might exercise on their behalf. That simply is not the case. The Constitution is a law, enacted by the people which clearly define the powers given each specific branch of our government and lists the specific powers government as a whole was to exercise on the behalf of those it represented. Any exercise of power beyond those specifically given is usurpation, and could possibly be considered tyrannical in nature if they in any way interfere with the liberty government was instituted to secure and protect.

Although our Constitution is a law, those who wrote it left us a way to modify, or alter it should the need arise. Article 5 lays out the process by which our Constitution could be amended to increase, or diminish if necessary, the powers exercised by our government. There are 27 amendments to the Constitution, 14 of which I believe to be unconstitutional due to the fact that they were ratified after a hostile takeover of State authority at the end of the Civil War; (but that is not relevant to the current topic of discussion).

If you were to read through those 27 amendments you will not find one which specifically grants the government any new powers. A great many of them deal with the right of voting, while there are others that deal with the selection of those to fill the various positions within the separate branches of government. So if, as Madison states in Federalist 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined” then how is it that your government exercises all manner of power that is not clearly given it? And more importantly, how is it that you allow them to exercise those powers without any complaint or resistance?

When George Washington chose to not run for a 3rd term as President he sent off a letter to the various newspapers across the nation, setting the precedent for what we now call the President’s Farewell Address. In his letter Washington stated, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

Therefore, if you believe that our Constitution is old and outdated, then you have but two options. First you can abolish it altogether; but in so doing you must tear down the entity it establishes, or you can go through the legal process of amending it; giving government the powers you believe a government today needs to effectively manage the affairs of this country. Any other means by which government exercises unconstitutional power is unconstitutional, illegal and tyrannical; and it is the duty of every patriot to resist these usurpations of power and authority. If you can’t see that point then there is no use in any further discussion.

But be very wary when you think about giving any form of government an abundance of power and authority over your lives, for once you do there is never a peaceful means by which government relinquishes that power. History is rife with time in which a freedom loving people have risen up against tyrants; sometimes obtaining their freedom, while other times losing and finding themselves in positions of servitude to an ungrateful master. America’s own history has two such events: The War for Independence and the Civil War; with freedom and liberty winning one and losing the other.

In both cases the outcome was never clear, but those who fought for their freedom and their rights understood that to do nothing was to accept that they had no rights of their own; that they were slaves. Live free or die was a toast proposed by New Hampshire’s Revolutionary War Hero John Stark in 1809, and it perfectly describes the mantra of those who understand what it means to be a patriot; the willingness to lay down your life defending the principle of individual liberty for all…not just a few.

Make no mistake about it, there were those alive in 1776 who did not support the rebel cause, and there were those who didn’t care one way or the other. But, those who sought their freedom and independence didn’t care, they believed their cause to be just, and they didn’t want anything to do with those who would not join them in the fight to defend their liberty.

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

And that is my message to you today; either join the cause and begin learning how far your government has strayed from its original purpose and the powers given it, or remain ignorant to the fact that you are a slave and that you are content to live in a state of submission to an entity that was created to be your servant; not vice versa.

Just because you are free to vote in open elections does not make you free. As Lysander Spooner so eloquently said, “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” It is the limits and restrictions placed upon governments ability to restrict your rights, and how well those limits are maintained which determines if you are free. And the extent to which a people stand ready and willing to enforce those limits, and defend their freedom is what defines whether they are patriots or if they are slaves.

Choose well America, future generations depend upon you…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Don’t Be A Mindless Puppet

A debate, at least a formal one, is defined as a structured discussion in which two sides provide opposing arguments; containing facts and evidence to either support or oppose a position, with a winner being declared by the weight of evidence they provide to support their position. I don’t know if they still do, but they used to teach debate class in high school which provided students with the skill of formulating well thought out arguments in support of their beliefs.

However, I do not see that skill being put to use much these days. In fact, any time someone attempts to use facts to support their position on an issue the overwhelming majority of the people resort to tired old clichés, insults, or name calling. It seems to me as if they are devoid of any factual evidence to support their positions, so they attack the messenger, not the message.

I’m all for open debate; I’ll debate the issues with anyone…as long as they remain civil and come to the debate armed with facts of their own. The moment you begin attacking me, or my character, all bets are off. As my friend Bart Stewart so aptly said, “Dear “Resistance”: As a civilized human being who retains respect for civil, honest, and open debate, THAT is the avenue that I would prefer. However, if it is a FIGHT that you have chosen, I will gladly deliver, and then some. The choice is YOURS. MAKE IT…”

Is that how far we have devolved as a nation where facts and evidence no longer matter; where only how we FEEL about something determines political expediency and what is considered politically correct?

Although those on the political left in America are more guilty of openly attacking the right with insults and name calling, make no mistake about it, those on the political right are equally guilty of ignoring facts and evidence; especially when it comes to their idiotic belief that the Republican Party even comes close to being what could truthfully be called conservative. As Michael Gaddy, another of my friends said, “Why is it if you challenge a National Socialist on constitutional principles, you suddenly are called a liberal?”

In 1966 Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley published a book entitled Hope and Tragedy, in which he stated, “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies… is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”

Whenever the political left and the political right; or Republicans and Democrats are being discussed in America, the majority of the people automatically assume that those terms apply to both those in power and those who support them…they couldn’t be more wrong! The way I describe it is as political insiders and the ignorant dupes who still believe in the two party system and think that their government even comes close to resembling the one that was originally instituted in 1789.

Sure, the government you have, for all outward appearances, is the same as the one that is outlined by the Constitution; but that’s as far as the similarity goes. The power given each branch by the constitution no longer applies to it, nor do the checks and balances upon each branch of the government apply. The purposes for which our government was established, (securing justice, the preservation of liberty, so on and so forth) are no longer the purposes for which your government exists. Today your government exists solely to expand its own power and control over our lives, while making those who finance the campaigns of those you elect rich.

Do you honestly believe that the loyalty of those you elect is towards you; or is it to those who contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars into their campaign war chests and send armies of lobbyists to woo and bribe them in Congress? I tell you what, if I was some fat cat CEO of some Fortune 500 company and I contributed a couple hundred thousand to some politician, or political party for that matter, and they passed laws that harmed my business, it would be the last time they got a dime from me.

Money is a corrupting influence in politics, and just because you are the ones who actually vote these people into power, it is money, or more specifically, those who dole it out in huge campaign contributions, which determines their loyalty.

In the film Hannibal, starring Anthony Hopkins as the serial killer Hannibal Lector, there is a scene in which it is said about the villain Mason Verger, “His family’s political contributions may not be enough to buy a politician but they are enough to allow him to rent one from time to time”, or something along those lines. No truer words could ever be said about politics in America today, as those you elect may make all kinds of promises to you, (and actually try to fulfill some of them), but their true loyalty is to those who supply the money the fills their campaign war chests, and those who create the money that funds government itself…i.e. The FED.

Yet most Americans refuse to look beyond their party allegiance; refusing to accept that there really isn’t that much difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. Sure, they may campaign on differing ideologies, but what they both lack in similarity they more than make up for in the fact that both want to see governmental power increase at the expense of the liberty of those who blindly support them.

Although by his very actions as president he ate his own words, George Washington once said, “The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon.” It absolutely boggles my mind how people can even think about saying they are making informed decisions at the voting booth when they are completely ignorant, or at least uncaring, about what the Constitution actually says are the powers, and purposes for which their government was instituted.

Have you ever heard the phrase divide and conquer? Well that’s what I see happening in America; the people are kept divided along political party lines in order to keep them from seeing the true evil that is right in front of them; government and the putrefied corruption that has invaded it at all levels.

Like it or not, our Constitution is not a rough outline for a system of government, it is the LAW by which our government should be held accountable to those it was established to represent; both the people AND the States. When you allow government, and this includes the Supreme Court, (as they are part of the government as well), to be the sole deciders of what the Constitution means then you pave the way for tyranny.

Your own ignorance is their greatest weapon against you. Can’t you see that? Did you know that there are over 320 million people living in this country? Did you know that, constitutionally speaking, there are only 546 legitimately positions within your government; The President, the Vice-President, the members of Congress, and the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court. That works out to a rough ratio of one of them for 586,000 of us. If only 1/3 of the people of this country were to wisen up and rise against those in power they would constitute an unstoppable force that could possibly make America great again by restoring it to true constitutional government.

However, the reverse is also true; as long as people refuse to accept that their government is absolutely, and irreparably I might add, corrupt then there is no hope for the future of this country; things are only going to get worse.

When knowledge is forsaken because it is uncomfortable, or because it might cause you to actually take actions which put you in conflict with friends and family, then ignorance becomes the logical alternative; and believe me, there is a whole lot of ignorance floating around in America.

There is a quote I’ve seen that I’ve been unable to find the source for, but which explains the state of politics in America quite well. This quote states, “If a man is born ignorant, to parents that are ignorant, in a society that is ignorant, lives a life of ignorance, and eventually dies in ignorance…ignorance is the norm.

Thus, indoctrination can be called education, hypnotism can be called entertainment, criminals can be called leaders and lies can be called Truth, because his mind was never his own.”

If you cannot think for yourself; if you cannot research and come to conclusions based upon historically accurate facts, then your minds are slaves to those who provide you with the information you utilize to form your opinions and beliefs. I have said it before, but I’ll say it again, TRUST NO ONE, including me! Do your own research if you value the truth.

Yes this will take time and a certain amount of effort, but the saying is that the truth will set you free. The alternative is to remain a slave to those who provide you with the data which you use to form your opinions. A majority of what you have been taught about your system of government, and the history of this country has been a lie, or at least manipulated to shift your opinions and beliefs in a particular direction regarding the agenda of those in control of the flow of information. It’s almost as if George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth has come to life, “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.”

Have you ever seen the Leonardo de Caprio movie Inception; about a team of people who go into another man’s dreams and attempt to implant an idea into his mind? Well that is very similar to what has been done to the American public; and it has been going on for generations. Our school system, the news media, our entertainment has been engineered to shift this country away from traditional, or conservative if you will, values towards one where we are a democracy and the public welfare is the only pre-requisite for our government to take enact law.

The people who were given the task of deciding whether or not to replace the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution were promised by those who supported the government outlined by the Constitution that it would be limited in power, that it would not threaten the sovereignty of the States and that it would not violate the rights of the people. Yet it has done all these things, and more. If we truly have a representative government; if our government is truly one which governs by the consent of the people, then who is ultimately to blame for all the corruption in government?

You are, because you refuse to educate yourselves!!! James Madison did say that “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance…” Well, if you want to fix America; restore it to its former glory, then you are going to have to turn off your TV’s, put down your iPhones, get off Facebook and crack open some books or start using those search engines and read the writings of those who were alive when the fateful decision of whether or not to adopt this system of government was being made. Learn how those who supported it presented it to the people, and learn what those who opposed it said would happen if this form of government were to be put into effect.

See who was right and who was wrong; and then, and only then, you might be able to do something to make America great again. But until you make that conscious effort you are just a puppet to those who provide you with the information you believe to be the truth. The truth is out there, but you’re not going to find it in our government or on the network news…you’re going to have to dig for it.

If you value your freedom, or what remains of it, I suggest you pick up a shovel and start diggng…

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Letter to CNN’s Angela Rye

Ms. Rye,

Rarely do I watch the news, as I believe it is scripted and biased, so it was not until recently that I became aware of your comments on CNN regarding your belief that monuments dedicated to Thomas Jefferson and George Washington be torn down because they were slave owners.

As I said, I rarely watch the news, so until I stumbled across your comments I wasn’t even aware of your existence. However, I decided to do some research to try and find out what qualifies you to make the statements you did. What I found was that you are the CEO of IMPACT Strategies, a political advocacy group in Washington D.C., as well as a political analyst for CNN. You may be a political analyst, but you certainly aren’t a historian, because you obviously know very little about Thomas Jefferson’s views on slavery.

I suppose you weren’t aware that Jefferson never actually purchased any slaves; that the ones he owned were left to him as inheritances from his father and father-in-law John Wayles. I suppose you also weren’t aware that many former slaves who had obtained their freedom went on to purchase slaves of their own to work their land; such as Anthony Johnson of Virginia, a freed slave who went on to own slaves of his own.

Then there was Justus Angel and Mistress Horry of Colleton District, South Carolina, also former slaves who owned 84 slaves of their own. Not to mention the widow C. Richards and her son who owned 152 slaves in New Orleans to manage their sugar plantation. So slavery cannot be laid solely upon the shoulders of those men who founded our nation.

There’s probably something else you weren’t aware of either. I’ll bet you weren’t aware that although slavery may have been more predominant in the South, racism was more extensively practiced in the North. After Alexis de Tocqueville came to America to study our society he published his book Democracy in America, wherein he states, “…the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those were it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known.”

Since you were targeting Thomas Jefferson specifically in your comments I’d like to take a few minutes to bring you up to speed on Jefferson’s views on slavery.

Apparently you weren’t taught that as early as 1774 Jefferson laid the blame for slavery right at the feet of the King of England in his Summary View of the Rights of British America, “For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa; yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty’s negative: Thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice.”

Then, in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, before the Committee of Five hacked it to pieces, Jefferson accused the King of waging a “…cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.”

Did you also know that under Jefferson’s leadership, Virginia was among the first States in the Union to ban the further importation of slaves into it? Did you know that he sought a gradual emancipation of all slaves on the condition they be provided with an education and relocated to a place they could establish their own colony.

Jefferson foresaw the problems that would likely occur should the freed slaves be left to live among those who had formerly been their masters, “It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence 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.” (Source: Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14)

Yet after all this evidence I’d be willing to bet that you still would call for the tearing down of all monuments dedicated to the man responsible for authoring our Declaration of Independence. But I bet you have no problems with keeping the Lincoln Memorial standing, simply because you believe he was the Great Emancipator and president who pushed for the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

I’ll bet you didn’t know that Lincoln, in his debate with Stephen Douglas for the presidency, stated, “While I was at the hotel to—day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

But I reckon that none of this is going to matter to you, your mind is made up and no amount of facts is going to change it. I suppose my only reason for writing you is to let you know that there are some of us out here in the viewing public who realize that you are full of shit and don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

My Annual Independence Day Rant (July 4, 2018)



“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.”

~Oscar Wilde~

I awoke this morning thinking that out of the 326 million people living in this country there are probably only a couple hundred thousand, (if that), who actually realize what they are supposed to be celebrating on Independence Day.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but to me Independence Day is much more than a day in which we celebrate the signing of the document the declared the formal intent of the British Colonies to declare their independence from Great Britain. To me Independence Day is more about the spirit that led those 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence to tell their government to go to hell than it is the actual act of doing so.

I can but shake my head in disbelief that so many people across this once great country will celebrate America’s declaring independence from England today, then turn around and condemn the Confederate States for attempting to do the same to a government that had become just as oppressive as the one their ancestors had fought a war to free themselves from.

I look around today and see the things people say and the candidates and measures they support and think that if the people of 1776 had had the same attitudes towards government that the people today do, that they would never have even bothered to gain their independence. I think there is a fine distinction about our Founders desire to seek independence that many today fail to consider; that it was not so much the desire to sever their ties with the English people; rather it was only their desire to sever the ties which bound them to a government that had repeatedly shown that it cared little for their rights and liberty.

Patrick Henry, that great Virginia orator who gave us the immortal words, “Give me liberty or give me death” is also quoted as saying, “Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings-give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else…” I listen to people talk politics today and it is always from a left versus right perspective; never from a perspective of whether or not government as an entity is defending the liberty it was instituted to secure and protect.

I could honestly care less whether you align yourselves with the Republicans or with the Democrats, if you were truly an American Patriot; if you truly wanted to celebrate and honor what July 4th is supposed to be about, you would not support our government as it exists today; regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

Our government, as an entity, was established to serve certain specific functions and given certain specific powers. Why is it then that when you oppose a candidate, or refuse to participate in the election process because no candidate stands for those principles, that you are told that you are unpatriotic? Did the signers of the Declaration of Independence sign a document which elected someone making promises to Make America Great Again, or offered them Hope & Change, or did they sign a document saying that they had reached a point where attempting to get government to serve the purpose they believed it should was futile, and that severing the ties which bound them to that government was their only recourse if they wanted to retain their rights and their liberty?

July 4th is about not about supporting this candidate or that; nor is it about getting a good deal on a new car or appliance; it is about resistance to government when that government seeks to deprive you of your rights and your liberty; and if you wish to honor and celebrate it in a manner befitting the risks and sacrifices made by our Founders so that America could be free, you will stop supporting your government as it exists today and start learning what it is that they sought to achieve by their independence rather than going around bickering over whether or not you are being tyrannized by Republicans or Democrats.

I hope you will keep this in mind as you enjoy your barbecues and beer today…

Posted in General | Leave a comment