Neal's Soapbox

From time to time someone will come up to me and ask me what we can do to fix what’s wrong with this country. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I don’t appreciate the fact that these people care enough to want to know how to fix what is wrong, it’s just their use of the word we; as if people have to unite into some organization or group to fix what is wrong with this country.

Do you think Patrick Henry gave Thomas Jefferson a call and said, “Hey Tom, things are looking pretty shitty here in the Colonies, what can we do about that?” I don’t know, but I think there is some innate need, or at least desire, in people to belong to something; some group, some organization, some movement. But you see, patriotism is not defined by what group you belong to or what political party you associate with, it is defined by the principles you support and refuse to back down from.

I think most who know of Patrick Henry are familiar with his words, “Give me liberty or give me death” but are they familiar with the words that preceded them? The complete statement made by Patrick Henry was, “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Henry didn’t wait until he’d gotten enough support for his ‘movement’ before opposing the actions of his government; he knew what liberty was, when it was being violated, and he opposed it as an individual. It just so happened that there were others of like minds that joined together in the cause, but had Henry been the only one who felt that way he would have stood his ground to his last dying breath.

This whole Groupthink ideology is part of the problem in this country; from what organizations you belong to or support to the candidates you vote for in an election. How many times have I heard someone say that I was wasting my vote when I voted for someone like Ron Paul; because he couldn’t win? People want to be on the winning team, or at least on a team that stands a chance of winning. What they don’t want to do is cast their support for what is right when what is right doesn’t stand a chance of winning.

When the Founders signed their names to the Declaration of Independence they were not certain that their cause would succeed; that they would be victorious in their effort to sever the ties which bound them to England. Yet did that stop them; the fact that they might not win? No, they were steadfast in their cause and had decided that they would either win the liberty they so desperately wanted, or they would die in the effort.
When people ask me what we can do to fix this country I often ask in return, “Are you willing to openly resist unconstitutional laws?” If they say no, then I tell them that they aren’t ready to do what is necessary to fix this country; because that is one of the things that our Founders did during the period of American History leading up to the Revolution.

What do people think the Boston Tea Party was if not an act of civil disobedience? What about the Son’s of Liberty marching to the home tax collector Andrew Oliver, then went on to ransack the house of their governor, Thomas Hutchinson? History paints our Founders as patriots and heroes – but only because they won. Had they lost they would have been painted as thugs, outlaws and rebels. Just look at how revisionist historians are painting the Confederate States of America; for they fought for the same things that men like Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams did. Yet they are the bad guys, while Henry, Jefferson and Adams are patriots.

Explain that to me if you can.

It has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but that is only partly true. You can watch something all day long, but if you don’t know what you’re watching for, then you are wasting your time.

I remember one time I was in Kuwait and the only things to watch that weren’t in Arabic were the sporting events on TV. But they didn’t have American sports on TV over there, it was mostly cricket. Seeing as how I did not understand the rules of cricket I could watch it, but I did not know what I was seeing on the screen. Then some Australian staying at the hotel explained the rules of cricket to me, and now I can watch a cricket match and KNOW what I’m watching.

The same goes for politics and government, if you don’t know the rules then you are participating in a system that is rigged against you; if you don’t know how the system is supposed to function, then will be unable to discern when infractions occur; if you do not know how your system of government came into existence, then you cannot tell how it was designed, from the get go, to produce the very government we have today.

Knowledge is key to understanding what is wrong, and how it went wrong. If you are not willing to put forth the effort to learn how our system of government came into existence; how it fundamentally altered the relationship between the States and the federal authority; how it was designed to deprive you of your liberty, then you are merely participating in a rigged game; never realizing that you are voting for your own masters time and time again.

People sometimes feel a sense of hopelessness when it comes to repairing the damage done to their liberty yet aren’t we the people the creators of, and therefore masters over our government? Although they may have the guns, the cops and the courts on their side, we have a powerful tool which we can exercise against tyranny; and most people do everything in their power to avoid using that tool.

The power that I’m talking about is jury duty; and most people I know would do anything to get out of serving on a jury. The voice of a jury is final; it is absolute, and no judge, no politician, and no majority of the people can reverse it. That is a very powerful tool, and if used properly could stop tyranny dead in its tracks.

You see, politicians my write the laws, the cops may arrest people for violating those laws, the courts may try those charged with violating those laws, but it is the jury that ultimately decides if a person is found guilty or innocent of any crime. If just one juror stands their ground and declares the law a defendant is charged with violating to be unconstitutional, then the defendant cannot be found guilty – JUST ONE PERSON CAN STOP TYRANNY DEAD IN ITS TRACKS!

Now this power should not be used for trivial or frivolous purposes, but if used to support and defend individual liberty then it is a powerful check upon our government’s ability to punish those who violate the unconstitutional laws they enact routinely.

Judges do not want jurors to know about the power they hold in the palms of their hands; they will even find people in contempt of court if they even mention jury nullification in their courtrooms; but that power has existed since the earliest period of our country’s existence and it remains within the power of every person to find a person innocent if they believe the law itself violates the Constitution or a person’s rights.

You do not want to advertise that you know anything about jury nullification, as that would ensure that you never serve on a jury; but you should be aware that it is within your right to declare the law itself unconstitutional, and therefore no crime was committed when a defendant is accused of violating that law.

In 1789 the very first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, stated, “The Jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” But to exercise that power one must know what the Constitution says, they must know what individual and natural rights are, and they must be willing to stay the course against a tide of opposition to their position.

As I can attest to, most people don’t know the first thing about what the Constitution says; most people don’t know the nature of their rights and how no government can infringe upon them; and most believe that whatever the government says is the law, is in fact the law; therefore anyone who violates it MUST BE GUILTY.

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

Yet the courts, if anything, are places that serve, not justice, but the law as dictated by your government. Go to any lawyer’s office and you will most likely find bookshelves full of legal books…but not a single book on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or Natural Law. That is because the law, as exercised in courtrooms is based upon the decisions, or opinions of judges. Legal books are full of Supreme Court and district court precedents, but for any law to be binding it must, let me repeat that, IT MUST be in accordance to the powers delegated to the government by the Constitution. Anything less and the enactment of the law itself becomes a criminal act.

But again, all this relies upon having an informed and educated public. Madison did say that knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and if there is one thing that I have discovered it is that people do not want to spend the time pouring over old historical documents and reading dry treatises on rights.

Our government knows this, and they take advantage of the ignorance of the general populace by promising that the laws they are enacting will make them safer, make them more secure and more comfortable; or provide them with more jobs or benefits – and the people fall for it time and time again.
Hell, all one has to do is watch the election process in America to realize that. Americans keep voting for the same old tired party hacks over and over again; voting for the same broken promises and failed ideologies that got us into this mess in the first place; and then they wonder why things don’t get better.

All the while your government puts on the show of governing, of partisan bickering with the occasional bipartisan effort; all designed to keep you believing that there is a fundamental difference between the two parties. Well the only difference I can see is how they seek to exercise their tyrannical power over me. People may as well be choosing between socialists and fascists for all the good voting does.

Liberty only comes to those who understand what it is, and to those who are willing to defend it against all attacks. Knowledge is the first step towards reacquiring that liberty, then the willingness to oppose tyranny no matter the cost to you or to your standing in society.

I have lost friends because of my beliefs. I have come under attack and been accused of hate speech or saying things that offend others. But if one stands fast, clings to the truth with all their might, they will be vindicated; either in this life or the next. Of that I’m certain, and so were men like Patrick Henry. Henry wasn’t concerned about what others thought about him, he was only concerned with defending God’s gift to all men – Liberty.

The truth, and the pursuit of it is my life raft; and I cling to it with all my might in an ocean of ignorance; for were I to let go I would lose all hope and falter. It is the pursuit of the truth that keeps me going when I am ignored, scorned and ridiculed. It is the truth that keeps me strong in the face of verbal attacks and charges of being radical and unpatriotic.

The truth will set you free, but you have to seek it out first before you can ever hope to obtain the freedom that it promises. Oh, and one other thing; no one ever said the trip would be easy; for it won’t, it will be tough. But if you stay the course and remain strong to the end, the reward will well be worth the effort. As Thomas Paine said, ” Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

You see, when you get down to the basics, it’s not about left versus right; Republican versus Democrat, it’s about freedom versus servitude. If you vote; if you obey the laws enacted by your government; if you blindly support those who enforce those laws, then you are showing me that you prefer servitude.

Freedom doesn’t come without a price. Our Founders were willing to pay that price, are you?

This morning I awoke all full of vim and vigor; ready to tackle the day. As is my usual routine, I grabbed a hot cup of steaming java and logged into Facebook to see what’s been going on. One of the first things I saw was a graphic of Donald Trump shaking President Ronald Reagan’s hand, with the caption underneath: The Two Greatest Presidents America Has Ever Produced.

I was so disgusted I left my coffee sitting there and crawled back into bed for another two hours.

Really, TRUMP…REAGAN…the two greatest presidents we’ve had? If people actually believe that nonsense, I wonder what they think good government is. Did they think that with Reagan at the helm we had good government? Do they think that we have good government now that Trump sits at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? I honestly would love to hear all these Trump…and Reagan supporters lay out their ideas as to what good government means to them.

I think there is a pretty large percentage of the people who actually believe that government is good by monitoring job creation and the closing day numbers from Wall Street. I think some people think that the more take home pay, (meaning the lower their taxes are), government is doing a ‘good’ job.

Reagan is loved by conservatives because of his trickle-down economics, his efforts to end the Cold War, and his wit and humor; he made people feel good about their country again. But is that surprising? After all, he was an actor for crying out loud; he knew how to play to an audience.

When Reagan became President he promised Americans a tax cut, and delivered on his promise…only to turn around and introduce the largest peace time tax increase in our history in 1982; and then he raised them again in 83 and 84. Reagan also promised to reduce government spending; which he did for domestic programs, but increased defense spending; thereby tripling the national debt from $997 billion in 1981 to $2.857 trillion in 1989. Not to mention the whole Iran/Contra Affair.

What about Trump; he promised a tax cut for Americans. Well if this year’s tax returns are any indication of a ‘tax cut’ I’d sure hate to see how much I would have owed had he NOT cut taxes. He also promised to build his wall; which I find ironic due to the fact that Reagan is remembered for telling Gorbachev to “Tear down the wall!”

Trump has also promised to bring an end to the Deep State. Well I’ve yet to see a single indictment come against anyone who is a part of this Deep State. Doesn’t the Justice Department work for Trump; yet it seems they are too busy investigating the manufactured Russian collusion fraud than they are the Deep State.

I may be a bit harsh on Trump; after all he is still in office and might still get another 4 years if he is re-elected in 2020; but still, I don’t see any of the liberty restricting laws or agencies being torn down, and any of my rights being restored; and after all, isn’t that one of the primary reasons our government exists, to preserve and secure our liberty?

Trump has said that he supports arming teachers in schools to lessen the risk of school shootings, (an idea I agree with), but he has also shown his support for Red Flag Laws that would disarm those who might become a threat due to things they have said or beliefs they hold. So does that mean that all militia groups are to be disarmed because they MIGHT pose a threat to government? Am I to be disarmed because I write these commentaries which are critical of our government? Who is to make that final decision to send an armed SWAT team to my house; kick down my door; and confiscate all my guns when all I have done is expressed my opinion? Hmm, is it some judge, some cop, some bureaucrat sitting in some office in Sacramento or Washington D.C.?

These Red Flag Laws are absolutely Orwellian in their nature; the entire premise behind the film The Minority Report; preventing crime before it happens by criminalizing thought. As I said in a recent column that should scare the hell out of you, but apparently it doesn’t, as you’re up for any law that helps to keep you safe – even if it comes with the loss of a fundamental right. You could very well say, on that issue alone, I preclude Trump from being included amongst our ‘best’ presidents.

I understand that presidents are only human, that they have the same weaknesses and flaws that we do. But we should hold them to a higher standard if we are going to place that much power into their hands; and therefore they should be both respected, and chastised according to how well they support and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not further the agendas of their respective political parties; or the fickle wishes of society in general.

For instance, I’m not a big fan of Theodore Roosevelt, he did things which I feel are blatantly unconstitutional, yet he did say this, “The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.”

To stand behind a president just because he was the one you chose, regardless of whether or not that president supports and defends the Constitution, or protects your rights, is a mark of your character and integrity. But it only shows that party over principle prevails 9 times out of 10.

I was born in 1958 and Dwight D. Eisenhower was President at that time. Since then 11 others have held the office of President; and the only one I thought tried to do a good job was Kennedy…and they killed him for it.

It’s interesting that one of the Presidents I admire was one who preceded the assassination of Abraham Lincoln; Andrew Johnson. Although I despise Lincoln, I do think he was trying to bring America back to business as usual as quickly as possible by vetoing a Congressional Reconstruction Bill that sought to punish the South for leaving the Union. It’s ironic that he was killed shortly thereafter; just as Kennedy was killed when he sought to end secret societies, put us on a sound economic policy, and possibly even dismantle the CIA. So in a way, Kennedy was fighting the Deep State, and was killed for it.

Getting back to Johnson, after Lincoln was felled by an assassin’s bullet, Johnson ascended to the Presidency and found himself stuck in a quagmire in which the Radical Republicans wanted to punish the South and force their version of Reconstruction upon them. Johnson vetoed their bill but was overridden by Congress. Twenty nine times Andrew Johnson vetoed bills sent to him by Congress regarding Southern Reconstruction, with 15 of his vetoes being overridden. Johnson fought long and hard for a peaceful re-entry of the South into the Union, and was fought every step of the way by a Congress that wanted to punish and humiliate the South. For that, he has my deepest respect.

But since the graphic that got this whole thing started was about the BEST president our country has produced, I may as well tell you who I think was our country’s best president – Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson did his best to thwart, or at least slow down, the effects of the Hamiltonian policies implemented under President George Washington; and continued under President John Adams. Had more Americans adhered to the Jeffersonian way of thinking there is a good chance we may have never had a Civil War, and we certainly wouldn’t have the government we do today.

Jefferson’s thoughts on what good government is are summed up by something he said in his first Inaugural Address, “…a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

I don’t see that going over to well today; especially from Democrats. I find that somewhat ironic, because Jefferson’s ideology was the foundation upon which the Democratic Party arose. I guess the Democrats don’t care that much about the history of their own party, do they? But I’m not cutting the Republicans any slack either, for they damn sure haven’t adhered to that policy either.

Jefferson sought to cut taxes and reduce the national debt by eliminating positions he felt were either unconstitutional or unnecessary. By his second term Jefferson was proud to say, ” At home, fellow-citizens, you best know whether we have done well or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal taxes. … The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid chiefly by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboard and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and the pride of an American to ask, What farmer, what mechanic, what laborer ever sees a taxgatherer of the United States? ”

Imagine that, no unnecessary government offices and no taxes. I’d love to see Trump top that claim. Trump and Reagan the greatest presidents our country has ever produced? What science fiction novel are people reading from?

Warning: Contains thoughts and ideas that might cause you mental discomfort. Proceed at your own risk.

If you turn on the network news you are more than likely going to see at least one story about Trump’s attempt to build the border wall he promised those who elected him in 2016. If you go to Facebook you are inevitably going to find meme’s from those who support Trump in his efforts to build this damned wall regardless of how many stumbling blocks Congress puts in his way.

Is illegal immigration a problem in America? It most certainly is; but it is minute in comparison to the other problems this country faces; and in fact it is a symptom of the other problems in this country. Focusing on this border wall is like worrying about a single ant that got into your home while your house is being eaten away by termites – there are a great many other things you ought to be focusing your attention on.
For instance, what about the fact that your government has amassed a $22 trillion debt? Can you even picture that much money in your feeble minds? You think a MILLION dollars is a lot of money; that you would be pretty well set for life if you won a million dollars; right? Well $1 Trillion is one million times one million; and our national debt is 22 times that amount.

Back in 2011 CBS News reported that the government spends about $6.85 million per minute…PER MINUTE PEOPLE! Our government is currently running at an $871 billion shortfall; meaning it spends $871 billion MORE than it takes in from taxes; which means it is adding $871 billion to the national debt.

But what do we do? Well, if we are Republicans we tell our President to hell with Congress, just build his damned wall, and if we are Democrats we tell government to institute more social justice programs to help those in need. In short, we keep asking government to do more for us. Well, one of these days the bubble is going to burst, and from the altitude that our debt sits at, America will not survive the crash!

It simply does not seem to matter to most people that their government, via the NSA, is spying upon them and collecting data on each and every one of us; in clear violation of the 4th Amendment. That’s old news, so who cares…right?

It doesn’t matter that your government currently has troops stationed in 150 foreign countries; none of whom we are in a state of war with; that’s just us spreading democracy and flexing our military might so that the world does not mess with us. But I bet we would take great offense were China or Russia to begin stationing troops in, say Cuba. But most of you weren’t alive in the 60s’ when we lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis. I find it hypocritical as hell that people think it is okay for America to flex its military might across the globe then when someone else does it they take offense.

Americans flocked to the movie theaters when the film Red Dawn came out; about a group of high school students who became guerilla fighters against a Soviet invasion of the US. Yet these same people denounce Al Qaeda and ISIS for setting IED’s along the roadside to take out the American infidels who have invaded their homeland. If our troops weren’t in those countries in the first place then those IED’s would not be killing them; it’s as simple as that.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for bombing a country back into the Stone Ages if they attack the US; but did Iraq or Afghanistan attack us? Weren’t most of the supposed hijackers on 9/11 either Saudi or Egyptian? Why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Oh, that’s right, they are our allies. Silly me.

And since I broached the subject of 9/11, what about the way the collapse of the Twin Towers violated the laws of physics? I don’t care about the official 9/11 report which stated that the fires caused by the planes weakened the steel; causing the buildings to come down…that is irrelevant.

Do you know what the laws of physics are? The laws of physics are certain laws, explainable by formulas, regarding the interaction between objects and how objects act under certain conditions. The laws of physics cannot be amended or altered by an act of Congress or an Executive Order; they are immutable; meaning they are unchanging.

The laws of physics state that an object dropped at a certain height will fall at a certain speed and reach the ground in a certain number of seconds, or minutes depending upon the height it is dropped from. The laws of physics also state that if resistance is encountered on its fall, an object will take LONGER to fall to the ground than if it fell without encountering any resistance.

The Twin Towers, as well as Building 7 fell at free fall speed; meaning they encountered no resistance in their fall to the Earth. How is that even possible when, at each level, there were thousands of welds holding the structure together and the floors in place? As each level fell it would have had to snap the welds holding the next floor in place, causing the Towers to fall at LESS than free fall speed. It is physically impossible for a structure built as the Twin Towers were, to fall at the speed they did unless they were aided in their descent by the removal of all resistance to their fall – meaning it had to have been a controlled demolition.

What about the reports from first responders who heard explosions in the sub-levels of the Twin Towers moments before they began collapsing? What about the reports of molten steel in the debris days AFTER the Twin Towers collapsed? After all, burning jet fuel might weaken steel, BUT IT WON’T MELT IT!

It would seem that those facts alone ought to cause any thinking person to want a more thorough answer as to how and why those buildings came down – after all, isn’t the attack of 9/11 the whole reason behind the War on Terror and the increased police state in America?

But that’s old news too; water under the bridge; so who cares anymore…right?

What about hero worship and the idolization of the enemies to our rights and the organic document that established our country – the Declaration of Independence.

As I write this a monument sits in our nation’s capital honoring a man who tore down all the Declaration of Independence stood for – the Lincoln Memorial. Having a statue dedicated to Lincoln is akin to the Catholic Church erecting a monument honoring Judas Iscariot; it’s ludicrous. Yet how many people say Lincoln was a great president and that he should be honored with his own monument? Does the truth of his crimes against the people of the South count for nothing in the court of public opinion? I guess not, for all monuments honoring those who fought for their independence from the tyranny of the US government are being torn down, while the monument dedicated to the tyrant who waged an unlawful war against them remains unscathed.

And then there is this whole thin blue line nonsense; you know, support law enforcement. I would, if law enforcement would support my rights; but so long as they treat me like a farm animal to be herded around, and tased or shot should I question the legality of the laws they are enforcing, they are no better than the British Redcoats, the Stasi, or the Gestapo.

Now we have laws coming our way that would cause Orwell to roll over in his grave. These Red Flag laws are laws which can be used to disarm, not those who have actually committed a crime, but those who MIGHT use their guns to commit a crime. And who is to determine which one of us MIGHT commit a crime? This is Orwell’s Thoughtcrime come to life, stuff of films like The Minority Report; where you can be arrested for something BEFORE it actually happens.

This should scare the living bejeezus out of you; but I hear people applauding it as a way to keep them safe. Well gee whiz folks, if you’re locked away in a prison cell you’re pretty damned safe too; but you sure as hell aren’t free, and last time I checked our government was supposed to have been instituted to protect our freedom.

When George Orwell wrote his epic novel 1984 it was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction guide for wannabe tyrants. Yet here we are with most of what Orwell warned about being reality.

While we don’t have telescreens in our homes we are monitored by our PC’s, our cellphones, and our smart TV’s. Our history has been rewritten by revisionists to fit whatever politically correct agenda they support, or to fit the narrative of the government. We have more troops stationed overseas now than we did during World War II yet we are told that we are in a relative state of peace in the world.

The whole while people blindly follow along, like sheep or cattle, supporting their particular political party or their candidate; regardless of the fact that government as an entity is the mortal enemy to freedom. It’s almost as if at birth they had the critical thinking portion of their brains removed, and are merely mindless automatons that obediently follow orders and keep the machine running. Pay your taxes, vote, obey the law, and oh yes, be sure to support those who enslave you.

Groupthink has replaced individuality and critical thought in this country, and unless that changes you may as well stand up and recite the party slogans:

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Sleep tight America, for Big Brother IS watching you…

On April 26, 1777 John Adams penned a letter to his wife in which he said, “Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.” You do know that Adams was speaking to us; for that’s what posterity is, future generations.

I do find it somewhat ironic that during the American Revolution Adams was among the most ardent and outspoken of our Founders for the principles of liberty and independence, yet once those lofty goals were attained, and he found himself holding the highest office in the land, that he turned around and signed into law 4 pieces of legislation which subverted those very principles – The Alien and Sedition Acts.

But that is neither here nor there in regards to the subject matter I wish to discuss. What Adams was saying is that he hoped that those who would follow him after he went to his grave would adhere to the same principles that drove him, and the other patriots of 1776 to seek their independence from a government that sought to reduce them under an absolute despotism.

I wonder, if Adams could come back from the dead and see what we have allowed to happen to this country, what kind of a report card would he give us for our defense of the principles he and his fellow patriots fought so hard for? Do you think he would grade on the curve, or say that there were extenuating circumstances which prohibited us from defending the liberty he fought to secure?

I often wonder how many of MY fellow countrymen have ever sat down and read the Declaration of Independence – from beginning to end. Of those who may have done so, I wonder how many have taken the principles it outlines and used them as the basis for their entire belief system regarding government. Aside from being a long laundry list of grievances against their King, the Declaration of Independence is a universal declaration of how those who signed it felt about their rights and the purpose for which ALL governments should exist. They then went on to sign it, pledging their Lives, their Fortunes, and their sacred Honor in defense of those principles.

I wonder, do people ever stop to wonder what kind of extenuating circumstances our Founders may have had. Most of them had careers of one kind or another that were put at risk by their treasonous act against their King. Most had families to worry about as well. Yet none of those things deterred them from supporting the principles outlined in that document. So what is YOUR excuse?

Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence – he wrote it and it was then submitted to a committee who then went about the process of editing it so that it would be acceptable to the entire Continental Congress who were about to be asked to commit treason against their government by adopting it.

Years later Benjamin Rush would write a letter to John Adams saying, “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?” Yet sign it they did, and it is our duty as Americans to honor their sacrifice by adhering to the principles they agreed to on that fateful day.

Or is that just too much to ask of people? (And that is obviously a rhetorical question)

I don’t claim to be the most knowledgeable person on the subject, but in comparison to the average American voter I would say I am light years ahead of them when it comes to understanding of the period of history which saw America go from British Colonies to free, sovereign and independent States. I am also more informed than the average voter when it comes to the intricacies of the document that established our system of government, and the arguments both for and against the adoption of that system of government. I think I also see, with more clarity than most, how it all went wrong – and can provide a fairly decent amount of evidence to support my position.

Yet when I try to present people with facts that prove their beliefs to be wrong I am met with angry responses or total apathy. I may as well be throwing tennis balls at a battle tank for all the good I’m doing. But then again I do live behind enemy lines in California; the bastion of stupidity and liberal thought – so that might have something to do with it.

Nevertheless we are all Americans and most would claim that they are at least moderately patriotic. But what does this patriotism mean to them? Is it flying the flag outside your house and threatening to stomp someone’s ass that desecrates or burns it? Is it having a barbecue and swilling a few beers every July 4th? Is it paying your taxes honestly and faithfully? Is it doing your patriotic duty by voting in every election?

Is that what patriotism has come to in this country; simple gestures that require little effort and even less risk? Patriotism is not, nor will it ever be, blind support for your government; depending of course upon the fact that it is managed by those belonging to the same political party you do. Patriotism is the steadfast devotion to, and support of the principles this country was founded upon; it is the willingness to stand guard against any and all infraction of those principles; and the willingness to rise up against those who would violate those principles – even when those violations come from your government. As Edward Abbey said, “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”

People are so caught up in their own little worlds of political party allegiance that they fail to see that government as an entity is a machine; a machine that devours liberty. People assume that when I say government I am talking about the President, or possibly Congress. But when I say government I am talking about the entire entity, from the President all the way down to the janitor that sweeps the floors in some obscure federal office building.

If I say I do not support the troops, or law enforcement, I am certain that I would become to object of scorn and derision, and called unpatriotic. But if those entities are doing things, and enforcing acts which violate our rights, or are blatantly unconstitutional, who is unpatriotic; those who support or those who oppose them?

How can you claim to be a patriot; one who cherishes and defends liberty, yet support a government that allows for the murder of millions of unborn children every year through the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade?

How can you claim to be a patriot; who stands ready to defend liberty, yet you support the governments unwarranted and unlimited spying upon each and every one of us; and who called Edward Snowden a traitor for exposing the extent to which our government is violating our right to privacy?
How can you claim to be a patriot when you support the limitations imposed upon our right to keep and bear arms, and the circumstances under which we can use those arms to defend ourselves or our property?

How can you call yourself a patriot when you honor a president who waged war against his fellow countrymen for exercising the very principle enshrined in the Declaration of Independence?

If you want my honest opinion, most Americans are more devoted to their favorite football team than they are to the principle of individual liberty.

Even before our Constitution was ratified, and the government it outlines put into effect, Patrick Henry foresaw this loss of concern for liberty in the people who supported a system of government that was clearly designed to destroy that liberty. In a speech given on June 5, 1788 Henry said, “Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings-give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else: But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an fellow: Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so, I am contented to be so: I say, the time has been when every pore of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American.”

I can only imagine what Henry would say about the people of this country in 2019.

Yet like I said, facts and the truth bounce off the skulls of most people like tennis balls off the armor plating of a battle tank; the people are too preoccupied or unconcerned to let something as insignificant as the truth to interfere with their lives, or their beliefs. And, as Thomas Paine said, “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture. Enjoy, sir, your insensibility of feeling and reflecting. It is the prerogative of animals.”

Then there was Patrick Henry, who said, “…it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

I began this commentary by mentioning a letter by John Adams to his wife Abigail; and I would like to close it by also quoting from that same letter. Adams told his wife something that completely echoes my sentiments regarding the people of my time, “I am more sick and more ashamed of my own Countrymen, than ever I was before.”

I do my best to hide it, but I can’t help but feeling utter contempt and disgust for the people of this country,(and I’m speaking in general terms here). I realize that there are others like me who see what’s happening, and more importantly, understand how it happened. But we are few and far between; distant buoys and beacons of liberty in an ocean of ignorance and apathy.

But, to my fellow patriots I offer up the standard toast, “Here is to us and those like us … so damned few left!”

In the 2016 presidential election Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton based largely upon his promise to Make America Great Again; that and the fact that, in his supporter’s eyes, anyone was better having another Clinton in the Oval Office. I wonder how many Trump supporters have it in them to do what would be required of them to actually make America great again; that is assuming that they even know what it would take to achieve that goal.

Although the 2020 election is still over a year away, the field of Democrats seeking their party’s nomination already rivals the circus of sideshow freaks that ran against Trump in the last GOP Primary. I have neither the funds to support a run for the presidency, nor the inclination to do so; but that does not stop me from having my own thoughts as to what it would take to actually make America a great place again.

Seeing as how I’m a public service kind of guy I thought I would share my thoughts with you. Who knows, you may actually like what I say. Then again, it may only serve to reaffirm your suspicions that I am some kind of a radical nutcase that poses a threat to your indoctrination…oops, I meant beliefs.

In either case, here is how Neal Ross would go about trying to make America Great Again…

Before I begin laying out my plan there are three things you must understand. First of all, America cannot be made great by our government passing a new law, or an entire series of new laws. Secondly, government is not where you will find the means to make America great again, and anyone running for political office who promises you that is a shyster. Thirdly, America must rebuild our educational system so that our children grow up learning both the history of their country, and how their government was actually supposed to work BEFORE it began its transformation from a limited government with a few specifically enumerated powers to this monster we have today with almost unlimited power.

One of the biggest problems we face is that our government does not represent the entities it was established to represent. Had you read the Constitution you would have seen there is no mention of Congress representing corporations or special interests of any kind. Congress was established to represent two bodies; the people in their capacity as sovereign individuals, and the States in their sovereign and independent capacities.

So the very first thing I would do would be to take a chain saw to the tie which binds corporate and special interests to our government. No corporation or group of any kind would be allowed to contact, or attempt to contact any member of Congress – PERIOD! I would make it a crime for them to attempt to either directly, or through the use of lobbyists, to contact or attempt to influence the vote of any Congressperson on any bill being discussed on the floor of either house of Congress.

At the same time I would make it a crime for any corporation or special interest group to contribute a single penny to the election fund of any candidate seeking office, and to any political party. Both the parties and the people who emanate from them need to return to being beholden to the people and the States, not corporate and special interests; and the only way to do that is to prevent any interaction, (both physically and monetarily) between the two.

Next I would repeal the 17th Amendment; which made the election of Senators by a popular vote of the people. The Senate was established to represent the States in their political capacity so that the States would have some say in what laws were passed. The Senate needs to be restored to its proper function by placing the Senators under the control and authority of the various State Legislatures.

Then I would institute strict term limits; with 6 years being the most anyone could serve in Congress. I would also require that, once out of office, they return to civilian life; meaning they could not work for any business or corporation who did business with, or sold goods and services to the federal government. These people were elected to be public servants, and they can’t do that if they are treated as a privileged class who do not face the consequences of the laws they enact while in office. So they MUST be returned fully to civilian life so that they too can suffer under whatever laws they helped enact. This also means that they would not be eligible for any retirement pay for the time they served; other than what they contribute to Social Security or their 401k that is. They should seek office to serve, not for the pay or the retirement package that holding office secures to them.

Next I would implement a balanced budget requirement and require that the government completely shut down if no budget is passed for each fiscal year. No more continuing resolutions or temporary spending authorizations – if they can’t pass a budget, and stick to it, then they should shut down until they come to an agreement on one.

I the same vein, I would require that Congress stick to whatever budget they had produced, and if they didn’t, every serving member of Congress would not be paid for that fiscal year and they would be ineligible for re-election for the remainder of their lives.

Since we’re discussing budget and finances, I would require that any proposal to borrow money on the credit of the United States be put to a public vote; no more raising their own credit limits. After all, we are the ones who ultimately pay off the credit they amass; so shouldn’t we have some say in whether or not they can just borrow money like there is no tomorrow?

And finally, I would repeal the 16th Amendment; which established the income tax. Our country got along just fine for 126 years without a tax upon our income, so it’s high time we went back to taxation as outlined by the original Constitution; AS RATFIED IN 1789.

Then I would set my sights on the Supreme Court. As they are elected for life, the only way to remove them is for bad behavior or a violation of their oath to support and defend the Constitution. I would therefore ensure that the President remove any Justice who attempted to legislate from the bench; meaning those who attempt to interpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They should apply those documents to their decision; not seek to impose their beliefs as to what those documents mean.

For instance, the 2nd Amendment merely states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Therefore the Court could not uphold any federal law that limits what type of arms the people may own; as that would mean they are interpreting the meaning of the word arms. Arms, as used in the time the Bill of Rights was introduced, meant weapons of war. Therefore if the government can keep and bear certain type weapons, so should the American public. Now I’m not saying everyone should have a nuclear weapon in their garage and a Trident Class submarine in their bathtub, but a federal ban on automatic firearms is clearly an attempt to interpret what is meant by the word arms; and therefore unconstitutional – and any Justice who holds that opinion should be removed from the bench.

Next up on my list of things to do to make America great again would be to withdraw from the United Nations and then give it 6 weeks to pack up its shit and get off U.S. soil. America, and the people who live in it, are not beholden to the will of other countries and if our government is to be truly representative of those it was established to serve then all outside influence upon it must be severed completely. I can’t recall voting for who sits on the UN General Counsel, can you? Since we didn’t elect them, then they have no business enacting UN Resolutions that are binding upon the U.S.; especially when those Resolutions restrict the rights, privileges and immunities of the people of this country.

Next on my list of things to accomplish would be to set my sights on the military and how it is used. Our military was established to defend our country against foreign attack; meaning we have no business having any bases on the sovereign soil of another country. I would therefore close down all bases outside the continental United States and recall all our troops back home where they can actually defend this country; not act as foreign peacekeepers or nation builders.

Next I would require that not a single US troop be sent into harm’s way without a formal declaration of war from Congress; including both the name of the country we are entering into a state of war with, and a clear description of what goals must be achieved for peace to be restored. Countries go to war against each other, they do not go to war against ideas, beliefs, or tactics; such as is the case with this whole War on Terror. The War on Terror is simply a blank check written out to the military industrial complex to keep their profits up and requires a never ending stream of new terrorist threats for it to continue.

If radical Islam is the true threat, and the driving force behind all these terrorists attacks, then we need to come out and say so and stop pussyfooting around the issue for fear of offending Muslims. And, if that truly is the case, then we need to stop going into countries and trying to establish democracies; we need to go in and bomb Islam back into the Stone Ages and then bring our troops home.

In the same vein, many of the enemies our military has been used to fight against are monsters of our own creation. Saddam Hussein is a perfect example; we funded him, we provided him with weapons and intelligence, and then he turned around and became a thorn in our side that we were later forced to deal with. Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and even ISIS, were, monsters of our own creation. Iran hates us because they remember how the CIA overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a cruel and tyrannical puppet government that was friendly to US and British business interests. If we would just STOP meddling in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations then we just might see a corresponding drop in the number of countries who hate the U.S.

At the same time, the United States is not the welfare state for the world. That being said, I would cease and desist will all foreign aid, both financially and militarily. I do not work, toil and pay taxes so that my tax dollars can then be sent to some other country to provide aid for people who, more often than not, hate my guts. If people truly care about the plight of those living in other countries then they can choose between a veritable laundry list of charitable organizations to contribute to; but not a single penny of tax dollars should be sent abroad for that purpose.

Along those same lines, America is not the depository for all the needy of the world. When the Colonists found that they were living under the authority of a tyrant they didn’t pack their bags and flee to another country, they fixed what was wrong with theirs. In that same light, we need to stop making America the refuge of all those seeking to flee from war torn and impoverished countries.

People should come to this country for one of two reasons; for the opportunities America offers, or for the freedoms it provides. If you come here for any other reason you should be denied entry. With that thought in mind I would then turn my sights on the 14th Amendment and repeal it. Supposedly, (although there are many who know the truth about it) the 14th Amendment was ratified to give some sort of citizenship status to the former slaves who had been freed by the 13th Amendment. Seeing as how there hasn’t been a slave in the United States for over 150 years the 14th Amendment is no longer required and should be repealed.

Those living in this country should owe their allegiance to and citizen status to the State wherein they reside, not to the country. I am not a US Citizen, I am a citizen of the Republic of California; even as screwed up as my republic is due to the liberal leanings of most of the people living here. That should be the case for each and every citizen living within their respective States. If people could think with that mindset it would go a long way in changing how they view what powers the central government should be allowed to exercise on behalf of the States.

Aside from ridding our Constitution of unneeded baggage, the repealing of the 14th Amendment would do away with the nonsense we call anchor babies; those born to illegal aliens who become American citizens the moment they take their first breath outside the womb. Anchor babies are the means these criminal invaders use to seek and obtain taxpayer funded benefits they would otherwise not be entitled to receive – and that shit has got to end! They came here fully knowing that they were breaking our laws to do so. While it is sad that their children must suffer the consequences of the actions of their parents, it is no less a crime to make the people of this country become their caretakers and providers through taxpayer funded benefit programs.

Next, as the federal government was established to act externally upon the States; primarily in regards to their interaction with each other as sovereign and independent entities, any government agency that has internal policing powers upon the States would immediately be abolished. I would abolish the DEA, the BATF, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Bureau of Land Management, and even the National Park Service. Those are just a few of the agencies I would eradicate, but they are the worst offenders and therefore would be the first to go. After that, any agency that attempted to act directly upon the people as citizens of their respective States would slowly be abolished; including the NSA which spies upon every person living in this country – in clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

That about wraps up what I would do to government itself to make America great again, but that is only a fraction of what I’d really like to see done; but it’s enough of a start to satisfy me for now. Now let’s turn the focus on the people of this country to see what we can do to ensure that our country never needs the kind of drastic measures I am proposing again.

As our government is one based upon the consent of the governed, the people are either woefully ignorant, or they simply do not care that the central government oversteps its delegated authority. Although I am a realist and know that you can’t eliminate that entirely, one can take measures to reduce the effects of ignorance and apathy in American politics.

First of all I would make a requirement that no one be allowed to vote unless they could pass a comprehensive test on both the history and the political system in this country. This test would not be a cake walk and there would be no multiple choice questions; you would have to know the data to pass it – and nobody would pass it if they did not score 80% or higher.

Next, I would prohibit anyone from voting whose job depended upon funds spent out of the federal treasury. What that means is all federal employees and all companies who depend upon government contracts for a majority of their income stream would not be allowed to vote; for it would be a conflict of interest to let them vote for people who will be tasked with deciding to continue or discontinue funding for their jobs.

Then I would require that anyone on taxpayer funded assistance be prohibited from voting until they became self-reliant again. Once again it is highly unlikely that anyone would vote for a candidate who seeks to reduce or eliminate benefits programs; so it is a conflict of interest to let these people vote. That does not include Social Security and Medicare, as those are funded by deductions taken from the pay of those receiving them; it would only apply to programs like Food Stamps, Welfare, WIC, federal grants and other taxpayer funded subsidies.

Then we need to focus our attention upon the educational system in America. Schools need to stop being indoctrination centers and return to being places where our children learn to think. By the 3rd or 4th grad they should already have learned how to read and write and have been given a basic foundation regarding the true history of their country. From that point further the goal should be to hone their skills and understanding. At this stage I would start our children reading books of a more serious nature. I would assign them books which they would take turns reading aloud each day in class, while having homework questions discussing the subject matter covered in class. I would require that before leaving elementary school that they had read Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and possibly Animal Farm, Lord of the Flies, or Johnny Got His Gun. And maybe for extra credit they could be offered the choice or reading, and writing a comprehensive book report on Atlas Shrugged.

By the time they got to middle school, (what we used to call junior high), they should have pretty well been taught how to analyze facts and ideas; then the real education could begin. I would require that a serious focus on the history of their country begin; starting with the reason why the Pilgrims fled their homes to come to America up to the period immediately following our War for Independence. By the time they graduated middle school they would know the names, and the roles they played, of every Founding Father.

While that was going on I would further their reading skills by having them read, discuss, and write reports on Bastiat’s The Law, Locke’s Second Treatise, and The Social Contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau.

By the time they entered high school they should have developed a critically thinking mind that was capable of processing data and forming intelligent decisions based upon that data. Then I would begin a comprehensive 4 year course over the intricacies of our federal constitution; both its content and the arguments both for and against it.

Is that a rigorous course of study? Hell yes it is, but what’s the alternative; producing entire generations of mindless automatons who meekly follow orders and do not question the actions of their government – even when those actions are blatantly unconstitutional.

You asked, well maybe not you personally, but I was asked how I would fix America; so I just told you how I’d go about doing just that. If you recall I think I did mention that I don’t think many people have in them what it would take to Make America Great Again. I think they want empty slogans and a few ineffective measures that won’t make any difference in the long run – anything that doesn’t cause them any discomfort.

Sorry folks, but fixing what’s wrong with this country isn’t going to be easy, and it won’t come without a little discomfort. It’s like what happens if you don’t take care of your teeth and one of them gets infected; you have to extract it, and that always causes a certain amount of pain. Well fixing America is going to require some effort and some pain; but in the end it is all our faults for waiting so long to put the brakes on both a government that has gone wild, and an educational system that is producing morons who don’t know the first thing about their country or its system of government; and who probably couldn’t find Alaska on a map.

So there you have it, Neal’s plan for making America great again. Can I get a second on the motion to implement it?

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

What would you say is the most fundamental right that we, as human beings, possess? Knowing how many people in this country are progressive thinkers I can only begin to imagine what answers I would get if I were to ask that question of people face to face. I can only speak for myself, and as far as I’m concerned the right of self defense is the most important of all our rights. I think if one were to think logically about it, that makes sense; because the urge for self-preservation is one of the most powerful driving forces that we, as humans, have.

Unfortunately, we as a society have been conditioned to believe that self-defense is limited to our ability to ward off and defend ourselves against attacks against our persons; when in reality it is our ability to defend all that is rightfully ours. Many, if not most of our Founders, believed that the right of self-defense was the first law of nature; meaning that it sat at the list of all the rights that we, as human beings, are endowed with by the very fact of us being human beings.

I can’t be 100% sure, but I’d be willing to bet that there are a great many in this country who believe that our rights come from the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. I don’t see how anyone with an ounce of common sense can come to that conclusion, but apparently there are a great many in this country who are suffering from a severe deficiency of common sense because some people actually believe that nonsense.

Thomas Jefferson summed it all up best in the Declaration of Independence when he said that our rights come from our Creator. Government may be able to do many things, but it damn sure can’t pick up a handful of dust and breathe life into it; creating man. Therefore, if our rights come from our Creator, then they come from a higher power than government, and government is violating Natural Law when it attempts to restrict or limit the full exercise of ALL our fundamental rights.

Now if you would but put on your thinking caps for a second that you’d see a very important point in that last statement; that point being that those who create hold more power and authority than do their creations. God created man; therefore God has more power and authority than we do. Now if you follow that train of thought you will find that man created government, therefore man has more power and authority than does any form of government – especially when their system of government is SUPPOSED to be one dedicated to preserving the liberty of those it governs.

In his Second Treatise John Locke points out a very important fact, one that many people simply don’t seem to recognize, “This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.” (My emphasis)

There is a word that describes the condition that man lives under when they are ruled by a system of government that does not respect their rights; it’s called tyranny. The best way to explain that is by saying that you are governed by tyrants if it is a crime for you to do the things your government routinely does.

For instance, if I were to confront someone on the street and demand that they hand over a portion of the money they had in their wallet or purse I would be accused of attempted theft. Yet government, by calling it a tax, gets away with it because people simply accept that this is what governments do. It does not seem to matter to most people that the power to tax is tied to the specific powers delegated to our government by the Constitution.

In arguing against the constitutionality of a national bank Thomas Jefferson summed that concept us as follows, “To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, ‘to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.’ For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.” (My emphasis)

Or, you could look at it from the perspective of Lysander Spooner, “If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized.”

The point I’m trying to make is that our Founders created a system of government and bestowed it with certain powers for certain specific functions; and that when their creation oversteps the boundaries separating just powers from unjust powers is breached, then their actions become tyrannical – and that is even more so when the laws they enact restrict the liberty government was established to secure.

Getting back to the right of self-defense, 5 years before Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence Samuel Adams wrote a report for the Committee of Correspondence for the city of Boston, wherein he stated, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”

True freedom comes when each individual is free to govern their own lives as they see fit, and at the same time defend their lives, their property, and their rights from attack from wherever those attacks may come. Or you could quote Jefferson, who said, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

I have the right to life, to own property, and to enjoy liberty, and when anyone, be it an individual or a group of individuals calling themselves a government, attempts to limit my ability to enjoy those things it is my right to defend them, and no human law can make that a crime; for that right comes from my Creator, not my government.

When our Founders wrote the Constitution they encountered stiff opposition to it from a segment of society that felt it did little to preserve the liberty they had recently won; as well as the fact that it consolidated the States into a single Union under the supreme jurisdiction of a national government.

Now I know that many of you don’t know, or care, about the difference between a national and a federal form of government, but it is essential to the discussion that you understand the difference between the two; and what the Constitution attempted to do.

A national form of government is one whose authority extends to each and every person living under its jurisdiction, while a federal one is one in which the authority of the government extends only to the component parts of the Union; meaning the States. In arguing against the ratification of this proposed Constitution, Patrick Henry warned, “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.”

That is one of the reasons why the adoption of the Constitution was consented to by some, so long as once established and in operation, this new system of government would include a Bill of Rights; protecting certain rights from infringement by the government created by the Constitution.

It’s important that you understand this; the Bill of Rights was written to apply only to the federal government, not the States. The Constitution established our central government, did it not? Then if the first 10 amendments to the Constitution add restrictions to the powers held by that government, how can they also apply to the States; as each State already had their own constitution which described the powers to be held by the various State governments.

The preamble to the Bill of Rights points that fact out quite plainly, “THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

Their use of the phrase ‘its powers’ states that the Bill of Rights applies to a single entity; the federal government; otherwise they would have said ‘their powers’ in reference to both the federal and State governments.

Since everyone is talking about walls these days, let’s use a wall as an analogy for the Bill of Rights. As our rights come from our Creator, they were in existence prior to the establishment of our system of government. What the Bill of Rights does is build a wall built which protects those rights from attack by our government.

Now when I say government I am not limiting my speech to the President or Congress; I am also including the almighty black robed clowns who call themselves the Supreme Court; as they are part of the entity known as the federal government. What that means is that Congress can pass no law; the President can issue no decree; and the Supreme Court can hand down any ruling that either limits or prohibits the exercise of any of the rights protected by the first ten amendments to the Constitution. That’s it, end of story; and should they do so they have violated the trust we have placed in government and every liberty loving person in America should raise their voice, and their arms against them.

Now that may sound dangerously close to treason; for it implies taking up arms against our government. But why should that frighten you unless you, somehow, depend upon government for something? If you truly understood, and cherished liberty you would not need government for a damned thing. After all, Thomas Paine did say that government was but a necessary evil, and in its worst state an intolerable one. And did not Jefferson say “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” (My emphasis)

Yet to even mention resisting, or rising up against government causes some to quiver in fear. I wonder, where would these people have been on the morning of April 19, 1775 when the British marched upon Lexington and Concord; would they have been at home quivering in fear, or would they have been on the front lines ready to resist tyranny?

One final thought and then I’ll wrap this all up. There are two things a tyrannical government fears; a knowledgeable people and a well armed people. That is why what you are taught in school about government can be summed up in one sentence, “You have a government and it is your duty as a patriotic citizen to support it, and to obey the laws it passes.” Yet our country was founded by hell raisers and rebels who resisted the authority of their government to enact any law which violated their fundamental rights as freemen.

Among the many fears Patrick Henry had regarding the government outlined by the Constitution was the fear of the coercive power it would hold over the people. Henry saw that it allowed for standing armies and the establishment of federal sheriffs to ‘…execute the execrable commands of tyranny.’ Henry warned, “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?” It is ludicrous to think that those who cherished liberty as much as men like Henry, Adams and Jefferson would think that their government should be allowed to possess the latest in high tech weaponry, while the people were only allowed to own semi automatic weapons with a 10 round magazine.

The Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, was written at a time when the guns owned by the army were the same as the guns owned by many private citizens. To say that our government should enact laws which prohibit the people from owning these weapons of war shows a blatant, and inexcusable ignorance as to the purpose for which the 2nd Amendment was written; that purpose being so that the people could raise up a well armed militia to fight against their government should it ever become tyrannical.

But people today don’t think about things like what I have just spoken of anymore; and that’s assuming they even give a moment’s thought to what their government is doing at all. There are some in this country who are so apathetic that the government could send in troops to herd them into rail cars and cart them off to a concentration camp; and their only concern would be whether that camp had wifi.

The remaining people are so divided along political party lines that they cannot see that government as an entity has become far worse than the one our Founders fought against in the Revolution. The motto of the majority of American voters may as well be, “Tyranny is okay as long as it is insert your party affiliation here tyranny. It is only when it is insert opposing party name here that I oppose it.”

The inability, or unwillingness of people affiliated with the two primary political parties to see that their candidates are just as much tyrants as are those of the opposing party only ensures that government, as an entity, is in no danger from the people; for most people prefer, comfort, security; or bread and circuses, over liberty and the ability to defend it.

That is why people like me scare most people. We don’t need government, and we damn sure don’t like it telling us what we can do with our lives. We also don’t like people who use government as a tool to impose their views upon us by restricting our rights or by taxing us to support measures we find blatantly unconstitutional. We pose a threat to their way of life and their entire belief system; and that causes most people to react negatively to what we say.

And if you ask me, there can only be one reason why this happens; people are mentally comatose; they are unable to take facts and form an opinion based upon them. And if you weren’t paying attention, I just said that most people are basically brain dead zombies who think that voting for their own slave master equates to freedom.

Well you can be a slave if you choose; that is your right. But you cannot impose slavery upon me, or upon others like me. We understand what it means to be free, and we know also understand that the tree of liberty is in dire need of watering; with the blood of both patriots and tyrants.
Or, to quote Robert Heinlein, “Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.” (Source: Starship Troopers)

And if you stand in our way when that time comes to refresh the tree of liberty, don’t be surprised if you should happen to end up as collateral damage. We may lose, as did the Confederate Army in 1865, but we know one thing that you don’t, “It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.”

I now return you to your regularly scheduled progra

The more that I read and study the matter, the more convinced I become that adopting the Constitution and implementing the government outlined therein was the biggest mistake our country ever made. Yet to utter such words might cause one to be labeled as treasonous; and if not that, certainly unpatriotic because it implies that the person saying it does not support their government.

On the surface the Constitution is not that bad – if it is adhered to in the strictest of senses – and as originally intended. However, if one begins to dig, to study, they will find that due to the omission of certain key words and by the delegating of certain powers the Constitution is actually a Pandora’s Box that allows for the entity it creates to become a monster that functions contrary to the stated purposes in the Preamble.

Among those who actually vote there are three camps that the media pundits love discussing; there are the Republicans, the Democrats, and those they call the Swing Voters; those who flip flop back and forth between Republican and Democratic candidates based upon what the candidates say on the campaign trail. Yet how many times does one hear those same media pundits discuss the Constitution itself, and whether or not the things a candidate is campaigning on conform to its limitations upon the powers delegated to our government?

Let me ask you a simple question; if the documents that established both our country and its system of government hold no meaning to you then what is to stop the government established by our Founders from becoming one that subverts the liberty of those bodies it was established to represent?
You see, no matter what you have been told, it is not YOUR government – not entirely anyways. Yet I constantly hear people use the term ‘We the people’ as if that means that this government we have was established solely to serve their needs. WRONG!!!

In January of 1787 the United States existed as a confederation; a loose union of States with a centralized government with few powers. At that point in our country’s history the State Legislatures held far more power than did the central government. The Articles of Confederation, which established that central authority, were enacted by the consent of the State Legislatures and its authority did not extend to the lives, property or liberty of the inhabitants of each State.

Then along came a snake in the grass known as James Madison. Madison felt that the existing government gave the States far too much power, and that for the UNION to survive that must change, that a strong centralized government must be formed which took from the States most of their authority, leaving them “…subordinately useful.” (Source: Letter to George Washington, April 16, 1787)

Yet had Madison came right out and said that this was his intended purpose, no State would have sent a single delegate to Philadelphia to attend his convention; and the Constitution would never have been written – so he lied. Madison, as well as all the other delegates, went to Philadelphia with the authority to only come up with proposals to amend and strengthen the Articles of Confederation. However, as soon as they began their deliberations the doors were locked, the windows covered, and they were all sworn to secrecy lest word of their evil machinations find their way back to their respective State Legislatures. Had the States found out what they were doing it is quite possible that they would have recalled their delegates, and the Constitution would never have been written.

While it was generally agreed to that a stronger government than the one outlined by the Articles of Confederation was needed; that’s where the agreement ended; as there were varying ideas as to how that system of government be organized and what powers it be allowed to exercise. There was also much debate within the convention over what powers the States ought to retain; while there were some who called for the almost complete abolishment of the States as sovereign and independent entities; consolidating them all under one central authority.

People today, with their perverted understanding of State vs. federal authority, cannot understand the extent to which many back then were jealous of any infraction upon the authority of the States to manage their own internal affairs as they saw fit. Having so recently fought a war to free themselves from the oppressive rule of a tyrant it is unthinkable that they would then turn around and create a system of government that opened the doorway for a tyranny of their own creation.

To the people living in the period which saw our Constitution come into existence, their home State was their country, and any form of government that intruded upon the authority of their State to regulate their lives was considered tyrannical. Therefore, to get them to agree to the proposed Constitution they were promised that the general government it created would act externally to the State authority.

To calm the fears of the people, at least those of the people living in New York, a series of essays were published in the New York Press expounding upon the need for a stronger more energetic government, and the assurance that it would not pose a threat to the States or to the liberty of the people. These essays became known as the Federalist Papers; and they were nothing more than a lengthy ad campaign to con the people of New York into adopting their precious Constitution.

Nonetheless what was written in the Federalist Papers, as well as what was said in the various State Ratifying Assemblies, is the reasons why the Constitution was agreed to; even though sometimes the vote was close. For instance, Virginia voted to adopt the Constitution by a vote of 89 in favor and 79 against. Then there were the tactics used early on in the State of Pennsylvania where some of the delegates to the Ratification Assembly were forcibly brought to the chambers so that a quorum could be obtained to rapidly adopt the system without a thorough and comprehensive examination of its attributes.

The key point in all this is that those who voted in favor of the Constitution did so for one of two reasons. There were those who hoped to benefit from the adoption of this new system of government; meaning leaders of industry or banking who saw this new form of government as a means of obtaining favors from the government they were tasked with debating. Then there were those who truly sought to do what was best for their State, and only adopted the Constitution based upon the promises made to them during the ratification debates.

One of the key points regarding State vs. federal authority is explained/promised by Madison in Federalist #45 where he states, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” That should be clear enough not to require an elaboration on my part, yet to be sure that it is fully understood let me say that few means just that; not very many, and defined means that the powers this new government was given are specifically listed – leaving no room for interpretation.

Madison then goes on to discuss those powers reserved to the States, “Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” Again, that should not require any elaboration, but to be on the safe side let me say that indefinite simply means without limit.

And here is where we get to the crux of the matter; where Madison discusses where the authority of the federal government shall extend. Madison states, “The former [federal] 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.” (My emphasis)

Then Madison concludes by stating where the sphere of authority of the States will apply, “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.”

Now you tell me, and be honest, how in the world does that even come close to resembling the relationship between federal and State authority today? When Madison said that the internal order of the States would be within the purview of the States he meant the enforcement of laws that directly affected the lives and liberty of the people residing in each State. Yet we have agencies such as the DEA, the BATF, and the FBI that routinely interpose upon State authority to control their own order.

How can you reconcile that with what Madison promised would be the relationship between State and federal authority?

Our federal government, as promised to those who agreed to it, would act primarily upon the States in their political capacities, while serving to defend them as a Union of States who had agreed to a central government of very limited power.

Unfortunately, as soon as this government went into operation, there were those chosen to run it who felt that it should use its taxing and coercive power to benefit business and banking interests, and to grow America into a mighty economic empire. At the same time there were those who sought to keep the government to its few delegated powers and allow the States to manage their own internal affairs. This was the origin of the first political parties in America; and they came about over the argument that the Constitution granted the federal government hidden, or implied powers.

Yet in arguing against ratification, Patrick Henry declared, “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.”

I don’t think Henry was opposed to the idea that America become a great and mighty economic power; only that government not be utilized to further that goal. For men like Patrick Henry, government should exist for one reason only – to safeguard and preserve the liberty of the people.

If America were to become a great and powerful people, it should be due to the industriousness of the people living within each State, not by laws passed, or taxes imposed that benefitted business and industry. And the authority over the internal affairs of each State, at least according to Madison in Federalist 45, lay with the State Legislatures.

Our federal government was not established to represent business, industry, and banking interests; it was established to represent the great body of the people and the States in their political capacity. That is why we have/had a bicameral Congress which represented the States, via their choosing members to sit in the Senate, and the people who chose their members to sit in the House.

The moment that partisan politics entered the scene it ushered in the beginning of the end to a limited government established to secure liberty for the people. Once people saw that the unlawful exercise of power created jobs, which improved their lives, they were willing to allow government to overstep its lawful authority even further if it promised them safety, security and comfort.

To bolster this economic growth protective tariffs were imposed upon the importation of foreign goods; much like what Trump wants to do right now. As most of the big businesses and industry were located in the North, those tariffs affected those living in the South to a much greater extent than they did those living in the North. In the 1830’s the issue of these tariffs led the sitting Vice President to resign his seat so that he could be elected to the Senate to fight against them for his home State of South Carolina. (Research the Nullification Crisis for further details)

Couple those crippling tariffs with the North’s attempts to abolish slavery; which was perfectly legal under the Constitution, and you see that the South was being forced to live under the authority of a government that did not represent them, yet taxed them heavily to fund the growth of Northern business interests. When Abraham Lincoln won the election of 1860 the South felt that their chances for restoring their say in government went out the window – so they seceded.

Now you might argue that the North was right in attempting to abolish slavery; and it was, as slavery is an evil practice. But does that mean the Northerners were any less prejudiced than their Southern counterparts? Well, according to Alexis de Tocqueville, it seemed that the North was worse regarding the black man than the South. In his book Democracy in America de Tocqueville writes, “In that part of the Union where the Negroes are no longer slaves, have they come closer to the whites? Everyone who has lived in the United States will have noticed just the opposite. Race prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known.”

The point is, that whether it be due to the North’s attempts to interfere with the legal institution of slavery, or whether it was due to the governments imposing crippling tariffs upon them, the South felt it had no other option than to revoke their consent to the government they had a hand it establishing. The government said, “Nope, you can’t do that; the Union is perpetual, as is our authority over you, and we’re here to see that it remains so.”

Had the government not used its coercive and taxing power to benefit Northern business interests there would have been no Civil War; but it didn’t, and there was. Ever since the States have slowly lost their say in what laws our government enacts, until finally in 1913 they lost all say with the ratification of the 17th Amendment; completely shutting the States out and reducing them to exactly what Madison had intended, ‘subordinately useful’ entities.

Those who adopted the Constitution back in 1787-89 were promised that it contained checks and balances designed to prevent abuses of power, but Patrick Henry saw through their fake promises and their ultimate goal of a consolidation of the States into a single national empire, “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 if that is the case, then those who adopted the Constitution made a huge mistake, which ultimately has led us to where we are today. It also means that Lysander Spooner is 100% correct in saying, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

For one thing is certain, whether you choose to accept it or not, if we have a government today that does not conform to the government which was promised to those who originally agreed to put it into operation, then we have tyranny; and no matter who you elect that will not change until you stop voting for party and start learning why your system of government was originally established, and start voting accordingly.

But I’m not holding my fucking breath on that ever happening….

It’s that time of the year when people start making their appointments with H & R Block, or picking up their copies of Turbo Tax – yep, it’s tax time. So, in the spirit of things I thought I’d spend a few minutes discussing taxes.

Did you know that our first government did not have any taxing power at all? What happened was a general treasury was established and funded by somewhat of a property tax upon the value of the land comprising each State. Congress would let the States know how much they owed to fund that treasury, and then the State Legislatures would be the ones to either decide to collect those taxes and submit them to the treasury, or ignore them.
The inability of the federal government to use coercion to ensure that each State paid into the treasury was one of the two primary reasons why it was felt a stronger system of government was needed; with the power to regulate commerce being the other one. I find it somewhat interesting that both issues are of an economic nature; but that’s just my mind examining things as I go along.

Then along comes James Madison and company, and their proposal for a new and improved government; complete with the power to levy taxes and regulate commerce. When the Constitution was presented to the States for their consideration, what they should have done is send it back to those who wrote it, along with a veto message saying, “We did not send you to Philadelphia to create an entirely new system of government; we sent you to Philadelphia to come up with suggestions to improve the existing one. Try again!”

Unfortunately, as is the case with all bad measures that people accept, then later regret, the States did not do that. Motivated by a spirit of fear that something must be done or the Union would be rent asunder by violent convulsions and an inability to manage its internal affairs, the State Legislatures accepted the proposed Constitution and called for ratifying assemblies to be held where it could be discussed by delegates chosen from among the body of the people living within each State.

It’s truly a shame that more people do not share the same interest in this period of American History that I do; for it is packed full of warnings of the dangers this proposed Constitution posed to the sovereignty of the states and to the liberty of the people who inhabit this country. Had the people of America been provided with a thorough and comprehensive education it is possible that they may not have been as likely to support measures that would later lead to the annihilation of their freedom; with an unlimited power to tax being one of those measures.

If it weren’t so pathetic, I’d almost find it laughable that people vote for this candidate or that one for President based upon their campaign promises; with the raising or lowering of tax rates being among those campaign promises. The President has absolutely no authority to raise or lower the tax rates; his job is twofold; he can either accept the tax proposal sent to him by Congress or veto it, and once a tax proposal is signed into law by him, the president is obligated to ensure that the taxes levied by Congress are collected in an effective and efficient manner.

Congress has the power of taxation; it says so right there in the Constitution, “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.”

Now when you mention taxes there are many forms they may take; sales tax, excise tax, impost, and tariffs being but a few. But in reality taxes come in one of two form; they are either direct taxes or indirect taxes. A direct tax is one which is levied against possessions and paid by the person owing the tax. An indirect tax is one which is levied against transactions and typically paid by an intermediary. For instance, if a tariff is imposed upon imported goods sold within the United States, the seller of those goods pays the taxes owed to the government, but they pass those taxes on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for those imported goods.

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution declares that “Representative and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers…” What that means is that the total number of people living in a State was to be counted, and any direct taxes upon the people would then be divided equally among the inhabitants of each State.

So, no matter if you were wealthy or a pauper, you would pay the same tax under any direct taxation upon you or your property. Oh you say, they can’t tax you, can they? Well yes, they can; it is called a capitation or poll tax and is authorized by the Constitution in Article 1, Section 2 as long as it is apportioned equally.

Now I have heard, primarily among the left leaning in America, that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate than the poor to fund the operation of the government. I find that both ludicrous and ridiculous; and I’ll explain why. Let’s say two people enter a WalMart at the same time. In the wallet or purse of one there is $10 and in the wallet or purse of the other there is $100. Should the person with only $10 be allowed to walk out of WalMart with the same amount of goods as the person who has $100?

Why should government be any different? If a person pays higher taxes, then shouldn’t they be entitled to receive more services and benefits from their government? Anyone who makes the claim that the poor should pay less in taxes than the rich is only seeking to deprive those who have more so that it can then be given to those who have less in the form of services and subsidies. I hate to break your bubble people, but our government was NOT established to play Robin Hood; stealing from the rich so that it can give to the poor.

Today, when people talk about taxes, they are typically talking about income taxes. Yet up until 1913 the income of the people was not taxable…yet our government seemed to get along fine without it. Another thing that happened in that same year was the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, which created a bank our government could borrow from to fund any operations that cost more than they were receiving in the form of revenue generated from other forms of taxation; such as tariffs and duties on imported goods.

Before the Constitution was ratified and the system of government it outlines was adopted, a heated debate ensued over the power of taxation given to this new form of government. In an effort to calm the minds of the opponents of this new Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “No person acquainted with what happens in other countries will be surprised at this circumstance. In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, far the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts, and from excises. Duties on imported articles form a large branch of this latter description.

In America, it is evident that we must a long time depend for the means of revenue chiefly on such duties. In most parts of it, excises must be confined within a narrow compass. The genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise laws.” (Source: Federalist 12)

If you’ll note, even Hamilton made no mention of a tax upon the income of the people; as had he done so it would have doomed the Constitution to the dust heap of history. So Hamilton kept his focus limited to taxes such as tariffs and excises. Now what is an excise tax you might be wondering? Well an excise tax is a tax levied upon the sale or production of a specific good. For instance, if you purchase a pack of cigarettes you pay an excise tax upon each unit of consumption; each pack of cigarettes. There are excise taxes upon that gas you put into your car, on the beer you drink, and upon your health insurance as per the Affordable Care Act.

I’ll bet you didn’t know that one of the very first things our government did once it was put into operation was to suggest an excise tax upon distilled liquor. As milk was subject to contamination and disease, with water not being much better, and coffee and tea being expensive, alcohol was the logical choice for people to drink; and therefore it provided a reliable source of revenue for the treasury.

I’ll be you also didn’t know that one of the first instances where the people of this country openly opposed the actions of their government came when the federal government attempted to implement an excise tax upon whiskey. The resulting Whiskey Rebellion saw President George Washington violate the Constitution by raising an army and invading the sovereign State of Pennsylvania – not the last time we’d see a President raise an army to keep the flow of money coming into the treasury either. (See all my articles on the real cause of the Civil War for clarification)

Anyway, in 1913 the 16th Amendment was introduced, and is claimed to have been ratified by the requisite number of State Legislatures; although there are those who claim it was fraudulently declared to have been ratified by Secretary of State Philander Knox. Regardless, although it took nearly 50 years to do so, the government finally had a way to tie the American people directly to the debt; making debt slaves out of each and every one of us.

All this began with the Civil War. I know some of you may be weary of me discussing the Civil War, but that is when things went from bad to worse in this country. I’m going to be as blunt as I can about this; the Confederate States left the Union, not to save slavery, but because they were paying the lion’s share of taxes while their tax dollars were being spent on improvements to and benefits for Northern business interests.

In 1861 the Chicago Daily Times published an editorial which summed up the entire reason why the North could not allow the South to leave the Union in peace, “That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.”

In short, if the North allowed the South to leave the Union in peace, the federal treasury would dry up and the government would go bankrupt. Abraham Lincoln could not allow that, not if he hoped to keep those who elected him happy. So Lincoln went to war with the South, saying that they did not have the authority to, and in fact, had not left the Union – they were only in rebellion against the federal authority. That is a key point, so keep it in the back of your minds.

Unfortunately the South lost the resulting conflict. Now if they had never left the Union, as was claimed by many in the North, why were they not allowed to immediately resume their positions in Congress? You see, somewhere along the line of those 4 bloody years of conflict, Abraham Lincoln must have began to wonder how historians would view his invasion of the South if its only justification was to bind the South to the Union for the collection of taxes. So he shifted his policy to the eventual emancipation of all the slaves.

In his book A History of the American People, Woodrow Wilson writes, “It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.” It is ironic that it was also Woodrow Wilson who was president when the 16th Amendment was supposedly ratified.

Anyway, before the Southern States were allowed to resume their seats in Congress they were forced to accept the 14th Amendment under the pretense of granting rights to the newly freed slaves. Yet the 14th Amendment was the cornerstone of universal debt slavery in the United States.

I’ll bet most of you did not know that there are 4 sections to the 14th Amendment, and that Section 4 states, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” If you were paying attention you would have seen that it says public debt; meaning they create it, but we are responsible for paying it off – and what better way to enslave people to a debt than by tying their income to the paying off of that debt?

Now America has what is known as a graduated tax system; meaning the more you make the more you pay in taxes. As a public service I looked up the tax brackets and am providing it for your perusal.

Tax rate Single Head of household
10% Up to $9,525 Up to $13,600
12% $9,526 to $38,700 $13,601 to $51,800
22% $38,701 to $82,500 $51,801 to $82,500
24% $82,501 to $157,500 $82,501 to $157,500
32% $157,501 to $200,000 $157,501 to $200,000
35% $200,001 to $500,000 $200,001 to $500,000
37% $500,001 or more $500,001 or more

I’m not going to say exactly how much I make, but I fall into the 22% bracket, meaning nearly 1/4 of my income is stolen from me in the form of taxes to fund a government I no longer support. If that is not theft, I don’t know what is.

Oh, by the way, that debt currently stands at $21.969 trillion. Our national debt is so big that if our government were to stop borrowing right now our great, great, great, great grandchildren would still be paying it off in their lifetimes. And if that doesn’t sound like slavery, then I don’t know what else I can say to you…

I could go on and on about all the other taxes you pay; inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes, but that would make this far too long. However, I would like to leave you with one final thought, something Lysander Spooner once said, “If any man’s money can be taken by a so-called government, without his own personal consent, all his other rights are taken with it; for with his money the government can, and will, hire soldiers to stand over him, compel him to submit to its arbitrary will, and kill him if he resists.”

So do your patriotic duties, go visit your H & R Block representative, or buy your copy of Turbo Tax, and make sure you meet the IRS deadline; after all, tyrants are depending upon you to fund their tyranny.

“Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.”
~John Adams~
“God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always
ready to guard and defend it.”
~Daniel Webster~

In 1775 Patrick Henry said “Give me liberty or give me death.” In that same speech he also said, “For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.” Those words inspired his fellow Virginians to join the cause of the Bostonians who were suffering the brunt of the Kings outrage at the Colonies for their disobedience to his dictates.

Then in 1788 when presented with a new system of government to replace the existing Congress outlined by the Articles of Confederation, Mr Henry said this, “Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings-give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else.” He also told his fellow delegates to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, “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.”

Was Mr. Henry right; is the primary function of government the preservation of our liberty? Well, according to the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”

Then, in the Preamble to our Constitution we read, “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)

It would seem that there is ample evidence to support Patrick Henry’s claim that liberty ought to be the direct end of our government. So why is it that so many people support a government that seems hell bent upon destroying the liberty it was instituted to protect? The motto of most Americans today may as well be, “I’ll give you my liberty just so long as you keep me safe, keep me comfortable, and let me be entertained.”

Dating back to before the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams wrote, “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”

Do you know the meaning of the word infamy? Infamy means: the state of being well known for some bad quality or deed, or an evil or wicked act. Is that really what you want to be known for; the last generation that stood a chance of restoring their liberty, but instead chose to sacrifice it for the promise of comfort and security?

Our forefathers rose up and fought their government over a few paltry taxes that pale in comparison to the heavy burden of taxes we suffer from under our current government. You see, it was not the taxes themselves that they revolted against; it was the principle that a government could impose those taxes that they found so offensive.

In 1785 James Madison would explain that as follows, “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties–we hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.” If you’ll notice, Madison did not say it was proper to take alarm at the first hint of unnecessary taxation, he said it was proper to take alarm at the first experiment upon our LIBERTIES.

Our Constitution gives Congress the almost unlimited power to tax us to fund its operations. Yet the power of taxation was supposed to be used solely to fund the government so that it could perform the few specifically enumerated powers delegated to it; not a wide plethora of powers that are to be found hidden between the lines of text in the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson explained the power of taxation as follows, “To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, ‘to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.’ For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.”

Is it in the general welfare of the Union to tax the people so that their tax dollars can then be given away to others in the form of benefit programs? Is it in the general welfare of the Union to tax the people and then turn around and hand that money out in the form of foreign aid? Is it in the general welfare of the Union to tax the people to fund organizations and agencies who then turn around and violate our sacred and unalienable rights?

The one thing I cannot get people to see is that those functions of government never change – they are constants that remain true regardless of whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in control. People are so caught up in their party furor that they fail to see that no matter who wins a presidential election, or who controls Congress, our government continuously does things which restrict our liberty and violate our rights.

And if that is true, then one would do well to consider the words of Thomas Jefferson, “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.”

People talk about their right to vote as if it does not come with the solemn obligation to choose wise and just candidates who will support and defend the Constitution; including the Bill of Rights. People act like that is an option, but it is their sacred duty to do so.

Noah Webster stated it thusly, “When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, ‘just men who will rule in the fear of God.’ The preservation of [our] government depends on the faithful discharge of this Duty; if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded. If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the Laws.”

Could that be why so many people fear, or hide from the truth regarding their government? Could it be that they know, deep down, that were they to accept the truth about the corruption that runs throughout government, regardless of which political party is in control, that they would have no excuse for not rising up and tearing that government down to the ground?

Ignorance is a shield that protects the masses from the consequences of their decisions; for if the people do not know the truth then they can simply say, “Gee, I didn’t know that.” That is why people denounce those who bear the truth, for their hearts are filled with the fear of having to face the fact that they have been deceived; they have fallen for the lies of shysters, con men, and thieves.

In his first Inaugural Address James Monroe stated, “It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin.”

Those words sound strikingly similar to the ones spoken at the end of the Constitutional Convention, prior to voting on whether to accept the finished document, “…there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

Government truly is a mirror which reflects the morality of the people it represents. If those gazing into the mirror are corrupt and without virtue, then they will see corruption in their government. We elect these people for crying out loud; they work for us! How is it that we, as their employers, allow them to get away with all these crimes unless we are to consider ourselves accomplices to the crimes being committed against us?

James Garfield, (Our 20th President for those of you who never heard of him), said, “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.” Those words were spoken in 1877 and remain just as true today as they did when they were first spoken.

Liberty, or freedom if you will, is not the gift of a benevolent government; it is our birthright, something given us by our Creator. If we allow an entity of our own creation to steal that freedom from us don’t you think that there is a chance that our Creator might be a tad bit angry with us for allowing His gift to us to be taken from us by false and designing men?

I’d love to see how people explain that on Judgment Day, “Gee Lord, Candidate A was a whole lot better than Candidate B” or “Well you know Lord, I had my life, my kids, or my sports to watch; I just didn’t have time to spend fighting tyranny every time it raised its ugly head.”

Ronald Reagan, the darling of the conservatives across America, once said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

Reagan said freedom must be fought for, and I don’t see a whole lot of people today fighting for it. Instead I see people willingly surrendering it for the promises of safety, comfort, and security – and it makes me sick to my stomach!

For liberty to survive two things must exist in abundance; knowledge and courage. First you must know what your rights are, then you must be ready and willing to defend them against all attacks; even when those attacks come from your government. That is the duty of every patriot in America; and if you cannot exhibit those qualities, then you cannot count yourself among those who call themselves patriots.

So long as you support a system of government that oversteps it’s just authority and makes a tyrannical use of the power delegated to it, you are useful dupes who joyfully support the very entity that is turning them into serfs; a working class whose sole function in life is to enrich the kingdom and who enjoy a few paltry privileges when they are found deserving of them.

Promises and campaign slogans do not make a free man, the steadfast devotion to the principle of individual liberty and the willingness to stand up and decry violations of it wherever they may occur are the mark of a free man. All I see when I look out upon the great mass of humanity in this country is a nation of sheep; obediently obeying the laws that enslave them.

And that is not what I would define as patriotism; and I think men like Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams would agree with me on that assessment.

During the administration of George Washington world events began to unfold which would dominate the political landscape in America during the administration of his successor; John Adams. After the French Revolution a series of military conflicts ensued as France attempted to fortify and expand its control across the globe. At the same time, with the overthrow of Louis XVI the U.S. declared that its debt to France was null and void, enraging the new French Monarchy. At the same time, the U.S. and Great Britain had come to a trade agreement outlined by the Jay Treaty; further enraging our former allies, the French due to the fact that Great Britain and France were at war with each other.

These events led the French to begin attacking U.S. shipping vessels. Using privateers, (privately owned ships hired under, or working under authority of the government) U.S. merchant ships began being targeted. In 1797 the Secretary of State, Timothy Pickering, told the members of Congress that over the past year 316 U.S. ships had been targeted by these French Privateers.

A Quasi War between France and the U.S. began when France demanded a bribe of £ 50,000 to French Foreign Minister Charles Maurice de Talleyrand before the U.S. and France could even begin negotiations to calm the rising hostilities. This event, known as the XYZ Affair, led to an undeclared state of war, (conducted primarily at sea) between France and the U.S.

During this time frame the U.S. had established the Department of the Navy and the United States Marine Corps to be used to defend both the U.S. and her shipping interests. It was during this time that Congress authorized the President to acquire and outfit not more than 12 ships, with up to 20 guns each, to serve those purposes. Then, on July 7, 1798, Congress rescinded all treaties with France and two days later gave its authorization for the newly established Navy to attack French warships in U.S. waters.

As is the case every time a nation goes to war, there were those among the people who supported their country, and those who opposed it. Of course there were also those within government who urged that the U.S. up the ante, so to speak, and declare all out war with France. Most of these War Hawks were among those belonging to the same party as the President, John Adams; and they included the head of the Federalist Party, Alexander Hamilton – who had always shown a strong affinity with the British – especially their banking houses.

As arrogant and pig-headed as John Adams could be, he did an admirable job of keeping the U.S. out of an all out war with France; especially when many in Congress and the public were calling for such a war. Yet Adams did do one thing which will forever condemn him in my view as a president who sought to exercise unlawful, and possibly even, tyrannical powers – he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The Alien and Sedition Acts were 4 acts passed by Congress in response to the hostilities between the U.S. and France. These 4 acts were: the Alien Friends Act, the Alien Enemies Act, the Naturalization Act, and the Sedition Act.

The Alien Friends Act gave the President the authority to imprison or deport aliens who may pose a threat to the U.S.; the Alien Enemies Act was similar but it confined itself to any male citizen above the age of 14 who was a citizen of the country America was at war with. The Naturalization Act was passed because they claimed it would provide for national security by raising the time requirement to become naturalized from 5 to 14 years; but in reality it was designed to decrease the number of immigrants into America who might oppose the policies of the Federalist Party.

But it was the Sedition Act that sticks in my craw, and apparently it also was of concern to Thomas Jefferson as well. The Sedition Act allowed for people to be charged with a crime for speaking out against the government; including both private citizens and the press.

You have to look at these events from the perspective of one who was alive at the time they occurred if you are to truly understand the implications of them. If you look at them from a 21st Century perspective, you will not be able to see how significant they were.

At that time of our country’s history there was still a strong sentiment towards State sovereignty; or what we might call State’s Rights today. Therefore, any attempt by the federal government to exceed its lawful powers, or infringe upon the authority and rights of a State, were opposed by many who still clung to and defended the principles our Republic was founded upon.

Thomas Jefferson was among those who still adhered to these beliefs, and as Vice President of the United States he found himself in opposition to the things being done by the President. This led Jefferson to secretly write the Kentucky Resolutions in opposition to the signing of the Alien and Sedition Acts by President Adams.

To understand the significance of this, imagine if Vice President Mike Pence were to anonymously write a series of articles or essays in opposition to the policies of President Trump. Imagine the scandal that would ensue should it be discovered that the Vice President was openly opposing the policies of the President. As young as our country was at the time, this was unheard of; unprecedented – yet not only did Jefferson do it, he also urged James Madison to do the same for the State of Virginia. The ensuing documents are today known as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

In his initial draft of the Kentucky Resolutions Jefferson wrote, “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority.”

There is a lot of information to be gleaned from that if you would just read it, re-read it, and then read it again; each time asking, “What exactly was Jefferson saying here.”

One of the key points comes when Jefferson uses the word ‘their’ to describe the general government; meaning the government was a government that represented the States, not the general public. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why the Senate is called the Upper House of Congress while the House of Representatives is called the Lower House? That is due to the fact that as representatives of the States, the Senate was the body that spoke for those whose authority the Constitution was both written and ratified under.

Although the Preamble may say we the people, that is misleading and inaccurate. The document may have been ratified by the decisions made by the people, but they were acting under the authority given them by their State Legislatures; meaning they were State representatives charged with deciding whether or not the system of government outlined in the Constitution would pose a threat to the States themselves.

That is why it is so vitally important that one understand the primary difference between a federal and a national form of government. A federal government can only affect the States as political entities, while a national government affects the people directly.

The people of America already had national governments in the form of their State Legislatures. The State governments, it was promised, would be the ones who had the authority to enact laws that affected the lives and liberties of the people, and the internal order (policing power), improvement and prosperity of the State. At least that’s what James Madison promised in Federalist 45.

In the same document Madison states that the federal authority would touch upon external objects; meaning they would not apply internally to the affairs of the States. Among those external powers were, war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. Not to mention that after the Constitution was ratified and implemented a Bill of Rights was included that protected certain rights against violation or intrusion by the government established by said Constitution. Among those rights are freedom of speech and freedom of the press. (The 1st Amendment)

That is why the Sedition Acts were so egregious to men like Jefferson; for they violated the fundamental principle that a people should be free to openly criticize that actions of those who represented them in government. Now libel and slander are two different things which are not protected by the 1st Amendment, but for a people to criticize their government to be made a crime is to totally neuter the 1rst Amendment – and it wasn’t the first time this would be done – Abraham Lincoln would do it as well during the Civil War.

Getting back to my original point, if the people already had a national government of their own; one which was given the authority to enact laws that concerned their lives and liberty, then that must mean that the authority of the federal government was to act upon the States in their independent and individual capacity. Therefore, what Jefferson was basically saying was that the States, as authors of and those to whom the federal authority applied, could decide that the acts of their representatives were null and void when they exceeded the specific powers delegated to government, or posed a threat to the rights of a State.

That is also why the Senate was called the Upper House; for as the voice of the States it was the one to whom the power was given to ensure that the federal government did not encroach upon the rights of the individual States. On the other hand, as the people were to be the ones to whom the taxing power most directly affected, they were given control over the ‘purse strings’ via their representatives in the House.

This balance between the voice of the people and the voice of the States was crucial to maintaining our system in its truly federal form. But once the influence of party entered into the picture people began aligning themselves with one party or the other, and the concern for the limits imposed upon the government by the Constitution began to wane; and to eventually vanish altogether.

This influence of party is not limited to the federal government either; it affects State politics as well. So even if we were to restore the federal government to one that spoke for the people and the States, (not the special interests) we would still be plagued by the same division along left and right due to the fact that partisan corruption has permeated American politics down to the minutest levels.

And that’s why I have to laugh when people throw their support behind this candidate or that; not knowing the true extent of the cancer that has invaded the American political system; and the corruption of principles that has eaten away at our beliefs and values.

I look at our system like I would a house that has caught fire. There is a small window of opportunity when a fire breaks out to save the house and the things inside it. However, once the fire reaches a certain stage the only thing that can be done is to let the house burn to the ground and protect the neighboring houses.

Our system of government is the same; in theory anyway. We had a chance, at one time, to save it, but we blew it; let it slip through our fingers, and now our only option is to let the whole thing burn to the ground; where we can, (if the people have the sense and the courage) rebuild it upon principles that will better secure their rights and their liberty than the one our Founders established in 1789.

I fully realize that I am not going to reach the overwhelming majority of people in this country; they are too brainwashed, too indoctrinated for my writings to have any effect on their thinking. I am writing for those in whom the spirit of liberty still burns brightly, for a remnant who might one day be called upon to rise up and restore liberty to this so-called land of the free and home of the brave. For one thing is absolutely certain in my mind – America no longer is the land of the free and the home of the brave – not so long as people do not know, or care, about defending the very freedoms our government was established to safeguard and protect.