Neal's Soapbox

Awhile back I had a conversation with someone at work, a Millennial no less, and he grudgingly admitted that he saw my point in the articles I write, but there was no going back to the way things were in America. I have to grudgingly admit that he may be right; but that doesn’t mean I have to watch this madness in silence; and madness is exactly what it is. After all, what else would you call people who refuse to accept facts simply because these facts make them feel uncomfortable, or contradict currently held beliefs?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news people, but ignorance, especially self-imposed ignorance, is not a virtue; it is not something to be proud of. Those who are willfully ignorant may as well be forced to wear T-shirts that say, “Hey, look at me, I’m stupid; I’d rather believe a lie than the truth.” At least if they did that they would identify themselves and I wouldn’t waste my time trying to present them with anything as confusing as the facts.

Nowhere is this madness more on public display than in regards to the beliefs held by those who are pushing to have every monument, statue, and emblem representing the Confederacy removed from public view. Not only does this set a very dangerous precedent, the beliefs held by these people are based on total lies. But that’s just it, most people are not only too lazy to seek out the truth, most people won’t accept it when it is handed to them on a silver platter.

In a court of law both the prosecuting and defense attorneys provide facts which attempt prove the guilt or innocence of the person standing trial. It is up to the jury to weigh the evidence and reach a verdict regarding the defendant’s guilt or innocence. If people cannot do the same thing in their political discussions, or discussions about the history of this country, then I may as well just put a bullet in my head before I take my chances with a jury consisting of 12 morons who cannot come to an informed decision based upon facts and evidence.

Maybe I have to put it in bold letters for ya’ll, but:

THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY!!! THEREFORE THESE IMAGES YOU ARE BANNING, AND STATUES THAT YOU ARE TEARING DOWN DO NOT REPRESENT SLAVERY AND RACISM!!!

If this were a trial, and I was an attorney, that would be, what you call, my opening argument; the position which I intend to prove by presenting facts which support my position. The prosecution argues that the Confederate Battle Flag, statues of Civil War heroes such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and any other monument which represents the failed Confederacy are images which represent racism, slavery, and bigotry; I intend to prove them wrong.

The prosecution argues that the Civil War was fought between two sides; one side wishing to free the slaves, and the other which fought to keep them. As slavery is an abomination, that would logically make those fighting for the liberation of those held in bondage the ‘good guys’, and those seeking to keep those held in bondage the ‘bad guys’. But that would only be true if that were the real reason for which the two sides were fighting; correct?

War, especially in the years of open range warfare where two sides faced off across an open battlefield and shot muskets and cannons at each other until one side had lost too many men to continue to do battle, was a regular slaughter house, and the Civil War was no exception. Over the course of that war over half a million Americans, both on the North and the South, lost their lives, with untold others maimed for life.

Therefore, one would think that if there were any option other than war, the two sides would grasp it before fighting a war which would cost them both dearly. So, if the Civil War was fought to free the slaves, then wouldn’t it seem logical that if a way to keep the slaves without war were presented to the South, that they would grasp at it before going to war?

Well, such an option was presented to the South in the form of a Constitutional Amendment known as the Corwin Amendment. The Corwin Amendment, which states, “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” had passed both Houses of Congress and was on its way to the States for ratification when the Civil War broke out.

In fact, Abraham Lincoln himself spoke of this amendment in his Inaugural Address, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service … holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

So if Lincoln was acting as Commander in Chief of the Union Army, and the Civil War was, as the prosecution argues, fought to free the slaves, why would Lincoln be found supporting a Constitutional Amendment which would have made slavery permanent across the United States? It simply does not make any sense.

In fact, in that same Inaugural Address where Lincoln is found to support an amendment making slavery permanent, he also is found declaring, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Although Lincoln would later break his own promise when he issued his Emancipation Proclamation, this clearly proves that at the onset of the Civil War there was no clear proof that the North was fighting to free a single slave.

I suppose to settle this once and for all it is best we go directly to the words of the man responsible for the Civil War; the man who raised an army of 75,000 to invade the States which had peacefully seceded from the Union without ever firing a shot; Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln states, in a letter to Horace Greeley, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution.”

No mention of slavery there; but wait, there’s more. Lincoln then goes on to say, “If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it be freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union…”

Well, it certainly does not sound like the freeing of any slaves was Abraham Lincoln’s first priority, now does it? Therefore, if the North was not engaged in a war to free the slaves, then it stands to reason that the South was not fighting a war to keep them. So if slavery was not the issue for which the two sides were fighting, then what was?

The war was fought by a government, led by Abraham Lincoln, which sought to impose, by force if necessary, it’s will upon States which had chosen to separate from the Union and form a nation of their own; which by the way sounds strikingly similar to what our Founders did when they issued the Declaration of Independence way back in 1776.

For years, decades actually, the Southern States had been fighting a battle in Congress over tariffs, or as we know them today, taxes. You see, back then there was no income tax as we know it now; all the revenue which funded our governments operations came from tariffs; which is basically a tax assigned to imported and exported goods. For years the Congressional Republicans had been attempting to prevent the expansion of slavery into newly admitted States, not only because slavery was a crime against mankind, but also to retain their control in Congress? Why? Well the answer is simple, so that they could continue to impose tariffs which primarily were paid by the South, but which once collected went towards infrastructure projects which benefitted their supporters in the North.

This issue of burdensome tariffs had come to a head once before in the 1830’s and that period of our nation’s history is known as the Nullification Crisis, when John C. Calhoun resigned the Vice Presidency to run for Senate to more effectively protect his State, South Carolina, from these oppressive tariffs. Is it just me, or is it beginning to sound like the reason which led many of the Southern States to leave the Union was very similar to the reasons which led our Founders to issue their own Declaration of Independence?

Quite possibly the only thing which may have prevented an earlier secession of the Southern States was the fact that, in the years preceding the election of Abraham Lincoln, the presidency had gone to Democrats who kept the Republicans and their tariffs somewhat in check. But with the election of the Republican Abraham Lincoln, the South may have finally reached the point where they felt that they had no choice other than to separate themselves from the Union rather than submit to a government which no longer represented their interests.

And isn’t that, if I am not mistaken, exactly what our Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution was all about as well; a group of sovereign citizens deciding that to live under a government which taxed them without fair and equal representation was the very definition of slaves living under a tyrant?

So, cannot it be said that the Civil War was in fact, not a war fought to free any slaves, but in fact a Second War for Independence; and that the Union Army were assuming the role the Red Coats had played in the first American Revolution? Wouldn’t it then mean that the Confederate Army was assuming the role of the Continental Army which fought for their independence from a tyrant?

It might come as a surprise to some that Virginia did not choose to secede until AFTER Abraham Lincoln sent out a request for Virginia to provide troops to quell, what Lincoln called, the rebellion in the Southern States. In fact, Lincoln had offered command of his Union Army to none other than Robert E Lee; the same Robert E Lee whose statues are being torn down as we speak.

Both Lee as an individual, and Virginia as a State felt that Lincoln was overstepping his authority as President by calling from troops to invade States which had peacefully declared that they no longer wanted to be part of a voluntary Union of States under a centralized form of government.

Had not Lincoln raised an army to invade the South there would have been no Civil War, and hence no statues erected to honor those who fought, not to keep their slaves, but for the principle of a States right to leave a voluntary Union. Therefore, those who are currently arguing that these statues and monuments be torn down are acting upon false information and outright lies about the true reason the Civil War was fought. If you argue that these statues and monuments be torn down, you may as well argue that those monuments in our nation’s capital which are dedicated to our Founding Fathers be torn down as well; after all, it is the same principle for which Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, and all the other Confederate heroes fought.

And that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is why I also declared that those fighting to have these monuments and statues torn down are setting a very dangerous precedent. For if they can have these statues torn down, what is to stop them from going after the statues and monuments dedicated to our Founders?

If you do not know the true history of your country, or the reasons for which its wars have been fought you are susceptible to all manner of guile and manipulation. The only way one can prevent themselves from becoming pawns and tools of those seeking to erase, or revise our countries true history is by acknowledging the truth.

I have never asked that you blindly accept that what I am telling you is the truth. I have always hoped that you would go out and do the research for yourself and find out what the truth really is. Only then can you have the conviction that your beliefs are based upon the truth and that you are not being used and manipulated to further an agenda that is harmful to both your country, and your rights as freemen.

But I am fearful that the truth no longer matters to people anymore. I am fearful that people would rather go on believing lies even when the truth is overwhelming in its opposition to these lies. If that truly is the case, then as I said, I would rather take a bullet to the head than to rest my faith on a jury of my peers regarding my innocence or guilt of crimes for which my government has absolutely no authority to punish me for.

As the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence states, “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Yet the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence doesn’t stop there, it also declares, “Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his, or her, own actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and vacates his, or her, office. It is the duty of every lawful American Citizen to oppose all enemies of this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC.”

Therefore, in conclusion, can it not be said that by supporting a government which oversteps its lawful authority, and by believing lies about the history of the greatest usurpation of power by our government in our nation’s history which are clearly proven by the facts, that you are neglecting your DUTY as citizens to oppose all enemies of the principles upon which our nation was founded? Cannot it be said that those fighting to have these monuments which honor those who fought, not to keep their slaves, but for a State’s right to secede from the Union are fighting against the very principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence?

Like I said, I do not expect to change anyone’s mind by the facts I have presented here. All I can really hope to do is ensure that you are not found blameless when the time comes to judge the people of this country for what they’ve allowed to happen. You have been presented with facts which contradict your views and beliefs; it is now up to you whether you intend to go on believing lies, or to take that first step towards freeing yourselves from the shackles of tyranny.

I now rest my case and hand the decision over to the jury of public opinion.

If you ask me, integrity is something that is in very short supply in America today. I can almost hear people’s thoughts now; “Just hold on a second there Neal; I keep my promises, I don’t steal.” Well I’m sorry to disappoint, but if you think that’s all there is to having integrity, you’ve got another think coming.

As I was browsing around last week for an image to attach to one of my commentaries I came across something which I’d like to share with you now. What I found was a definition for integrity that stated, “Integrity is doing what is right; even when no one is watching.” While that may not cover all that integrity entails; it comes pretty darned close.

Integrity is defined as a “concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one’s actions.” A person who has integrity has a set of codes, or morals, that they live their lives according to; and which they will not sacrifice under any circumstances. Also, although it is not ALWAYS the case, these codes or morals are supported by concrete, irrefutable facts; not feelings and emotions which can be fickle, or manipulated.

I can’t remember when, but it was years ago that I was presented with a fictional scenario designed to gauge a person’s integrity. The scenario posed a situation in which you come upon a shopping bag filled with hundred dollar bills, and then asked you to explain what you would do if you found it. Some said they would keep it, others said they would try to find who it belonged to, while others said they would turn it in to the police and let them try to find out who it belonged to. I wonder, in the years that have passed since I first was asked that question, how much the ration between those who would keep the money and those who would return it has shifted to the latter.

While I am not picking on, or singling out, Millennials, I recently read an interesting quote from an article written by Kaylee McGhee, a Millennial, which was posted in the Detroit News, “My generation is a symptom of the society past generations have built — one characterized by immediate gratification, the breakdown of a moral code and the victim mentality. It’s the wreckage of past generations’ experiments with post-modern liberalism, and millennials are trying to wade through it.”

To sum all that up, what I believe Ms McGhee is saying is that Millennials are a result of the breakdown, or degradation of people’s integrity which has been going on for generations. The sad thing is, I don’t see things getter any better; in fact, I only see them getting worse.

Just look at what happens today when someone holding a particular view on an issue is presented with facts which contradict their position on the issue; they ignore the facts and resort to name calling in the attempt to focus the attention on the character of the messenger, instead of focusing on what’s really important, the message itself. It doesn’t matter if the subject under discussion is people’s beliefs as to the reasons the Civil War was fought, whether our government no longer adheres to the Constitution, or whether our government is controlled from behind the scenes by powerful moneyed interests who care nothing about the best interests of America itself; the facts do not matter. All people today care about is their feelings; their political party, or their cause.

People talk about the truth all the time; but they only pay lip service to it. The moment they are presented with a truth which conflicts with their beliefs they turn their eyes away from it, or begin insulting those who speak it. What does that say about most people’s integrity?

Now this may come as a shock to some, but this problem is not something new; it is not something that has sprung up in the last few generations; it is something that has been around since the very beginning of our nation’s existence. Allow me to provide an example of what I mean.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence he said 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.” Jefferson then says that governments are instituted among men to secure those rights. That is a bedrock principle upon which America was birthed as a nation. How is it then that our Founders could ratify a Constitution which created a system of government that tolerated slavery? After all, does not slavery DENY the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness to those held in bondage?

Where was their integrity?

Make no mistake about it, I am NOT saying that the Civil War was a just war because it eventually led to the abolition of slavery; it wasn’t. The Civil War was fought so that Abraham Lincoln could keep the Southern States in the Union against their will and subjugate them to the federal authority. As Lincoln said in his letter to Horace Greeley, “The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be to the Union as it was.”

As far as Lincoln was concerned it was to hell with States Rights, or the fact that the people created the government for certain defined purposes, and when government no longer served those purposes it was the right of the people to alter or abolish it and seek to establish a government which would serve those purposes. Lincoln only cared about keeping the Union together so that HIS government, and more specifically, HIS party, the Republicans could continue to spend the revenue derived from the oppressive tariffs that were being levied against the Southern States.

Lincoln used slavery, and his stance on it, only to further his goal of re-uniting the Union. Read the Emancipation Proclamation, and I mean REALLY read it, and see what it says. It does not free all the slaves, only those held in bondage in locations which were still under Confederate control. This again is exactly what Lincoln said in his letter to Greeley, “What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

Yet today, 152 years after the end of the Civil War, people are going around supporting positions, and demanding the certain Civil War monuments and statues be torn down based upon their misguided belief that the Civil War was ALL about slavery; and that the South represented racism and bigotry. The facts do not matter to these people; and that begs the question; where is their integrity?

Our Constitution was written to create a system of government with certain specific powers. As it was the act of a people constituting a system of government. Therefore, the people are the ones with all the authority, and at any time, should that system of government become destructive of the ends for which it was established, it IS our right to tear that government down.

Also, our Founders believed that our rights were unalienable; that is they cannot be surrendered or taken from us. Yet how many laws have been passed by our government which does EXACTLY that?

Yet people will tell you that they are patriotic, that they love America. Then why do they not uphold the principles and values that America was founded upon? Where is their integrity in regards to supporting and defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

I can almost forgive our lawmakers as power is a powerful thing and those who wield it often fall victim to its seducing qualities. Yet they all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution; something which NONE OF THEM take seriously; unless of course you count Ron Paul. Yet even Ron Paul refused to address the Constitutional eligibility of a certain you political activist and Junior Senator from the State of Illinois who ran for president back in 2008. So even Ron Paul’s integrity could be called into question; or could it be that he understood that should he speak out on the ineligibility of Barack Obama to hold the position of Executive that his career, and possibly his life, would have ended?

In the film V For Vendetta there is a scene when Natalie Portman’s character, Evey Hammond, is captured and held in a cell while those in authority attempt to obtain the location of the terrorist known as V. While held in captivity she is given a letter which was written by someone in the cell next to hers; Valerie. At the end of her letter to Evey, Valerie writes, “An inch. It’s small and it’s fragile and it’s the only thing in the world worth having. We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.”

Although the entire scene was a fabrication of V to free Evey of her own demons and fear, it is the content of those final words that I wish to focus your attention upon. It is my belief that this final inch that Valerie speaks of is our integrity. Without integrity we are nothing if not mindless beings without any moral code or ethics. Integrity or the adherence to certain principles, values and the truth is what gives my life purpose. I cannot speak for what gives YOUR live purpose; only YOU can do that.

I cannot for the life of me understand how so many people would willingly sit back and watch as their government continues to grow in power and authority, while at the same time depriving us of the liberty it was established to secure for us. At the same time I cannot understand why people would go about promoting the concept of mindless obedience to those in positions of authority; be they government officials or law enforcement officers.

The Sixteenth American Jurisprudence states, “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Yet when one even hints of openly questioning unconstitutional laws, or resisting the authority of law enforcement to enforce these unconstitutional statutes, they are looked upon as if they’d lost their minds.

Is that the nature of free men and women, to mindlessly obey authority? If you ask me, it is the mark of a slave. All one has to do is read the history of the American Revolution and they would see that it the history of a people who DID NOT accept that their government had unlimited power and authority over their lives, and they reacted accordingly to unjust laws which violated their rights.

As James Madison would write in his 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance, “We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.”

As former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglass once asked, “Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us?”

If we have a system of government that was created by a solemn act of the people; and this government was designed to give government certain specific powers, while the States and the people retained the rest, (See the 10th Amendment), and if one of our government’s functions was to secure our liberty, then how can anyone support a government that is diametrically in opposition to those very principles, yet still claim they have ANY personal integrity?

Either we have a government which adheres to the principles upon which it was established, or we don’t. Either we have a government whose purpose is to expand our liberty or we have a tyrant which seeks to limit it. Which one it is I will leave it up to you to decide; but the facts tend to lean highly towards the latter. I suppose the only real question then is, when are people going to develop some integrity and begin standing up for what is right instead of what is politically expedient?

Have you ever stopped to think about how certain things take on a life of their own? Sometimes this is a good thing, as it pushes something to the forefront of public discourse which needs to be addressed. Other times it gives credence to something that isn’t worthy of a second of our time.

As an example, the Civil Rights movement of the 60’s brought a very real problem in this country to the forefront of public discourse. Today although a great many in the black community may still argue for their civil rights, I wonder how many actually know how and when the Civil Rights movement began. The Civil Rights movement had always been an issue that lay just below the surface, simmering away; but it did not gain any real traction until a woman named Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat in the ‘White’s Only’ section of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama on December 1, 1965.

Although much progress has been made, there still remains a lot of prejudice in this country; and this is true in regards to how both sides in the issue view and treat the other. Once again though, the issue or racism and prejudice has reared its ugly head with a large portion of society taking the position that any monument or statue honoring those who fought on the side of the Confederacy be torn down because they represent racism and hatred.

Once people take sides on an issue such as this it is extremely difficult, if not downright impossible to change their minds about their positions; no matter how well you prove your position with facts. I don’t know anything about psychology, but I believe that once the emotional side of the brain takes over, it shuts logic down and blocks the mind from considering any facts which contradict existing beliefs.

Yet if you do not have any facts to support your position, then all you are basing your actions upon are emotions, and emotions can be manipulated and controlled by others to achieve a specific agenda.

I don’t know how many of you have seen the film The Punisher, but it tells the story of Frank Castle and his quest for vengeance against John Travolta’s character, Howard Saint for the murder of Castle’s wife and son. Castle uses Saint’s jealousy as a weapon against him which leads him to kill his wife and best friend based solely upon innuendo and false evidence. Although the film is purely fictional, it shows how, once a person begins believing something, their emotions take over and refuse to allow them to consider any evidence to the contrary.

The truth that the Civil War itself was not fought over slavery does not matter in the least to those protesting for the removal of all these Confederate monuments and statues. All that matters is their perceived view that those monuments and statues represent racism and hatred.

I know there is still a lot of deep seated lingering resentment in this country over the issue of slavery; after all, it truly was a blot upon our history as a country which was supposedly built upon the concept that all men are created equal. Yet the Civil War ended in 1865, and the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, was passed soon thereafter. Therefore, unless you are over the age of 152 yrs, you have never owned, nor been a slave. Isn’t it time we got past the issue of slavery?

Yet the man responsible for writing our nation’s Declaration of Independence has come under attack simply because he owned slaves and supposedly had a relationship with one of them; Sally Hemings. Revisionist historians are focusing more on Jefferson’s slave ownership and his supposed affair with this woman than they are on the fact that Jefferson himself viewed slavery as an evil institution and worked actively to have it abolished in the State of Virginia.

Not only that, historians fail to mention that in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson lays the blame for the evil of slavery right at the feet of King George III, “… he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”

Not only that, but Jefferson saw this coming and sought a means to prevent it. Jefferson understood that there would be lingering prejudices and resentments between the two races and sought to prevent them from boiling over and leading to exactly what we are close to witnessing now; another race war.

In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson proposed, “To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, seeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength…”

Honestly, does that sound like Jefferson held any ill will towards those held in bondage? To me it sounds like he wanted to help them, to educate them and lift them out of bondage and provide them with the skills and tools to survive as free men on their own. Yet Jefferson feared these lingering resentments and deep seated prejudices which is why he also suggested that the emancipated slaves be colonized outside the United States, “It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” Tell me, does that not sound frighteningly close to exactly what is happening in America today?

And before you go off calling Jefferson a racist and a bigot because he proposed colonizing emancipated slaves outside the U.S., consider for a moment that the Great Emancipator himself, Abraham Lincoln proposed the very same thing. In fact, in an 1862 meeting held in the White House with a Deputation of Free Negroes, Lincoln proposed colonizing emancipated slaves on a 10,000 acre parcel of land in what is currently Panama. During this meeting Lincoln made the following statement, “You and we are different races and have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races.” Lincoln then went on to say that the African race suffered greatly “by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence.”

Now tell me, whose words sound more racist; Jefferson’s or Lincolns?

Besides, you do not hear the Irish-Americans protesting, or calling for reparations for their suffering as indentured servants, (which if you aren’t familiar with the term is basically the same thing as slavery). These Irish were transported by the hundreds of thousands across the ocean to work in America; men, women, and even small children were brought by the boatloads to suffer and die on the way; only to work under conditions that can only be described as servitude.

Whenever these Irish indentured servants rebelled, or even disobeyed a small order, they were punished in the harshest manner possible. These poor men and women were hung by their hands and their hands or feet set on fire. Some were burned alive and had their heads placed upon pikes as a warning to others not to disobey their owners.

In fact, the Irish slaves were treated far worse than many of the African slaves simply because they were cheaper to come by. A single African slave cost far more to transport and then train than did an Irish slave, and therefore an Irish slave was often considered an expendable item; while an African slave was much more highly valued property. And yes, the idea of one human being owning another as a piece of property is horrific, but I’m only showing that the Irish slaves suffered far worse; yet you don’t hear US complaining, do you?

Just to show how little those protesting these Civil War monuments and statues know about the people they represent, let me provide a few facts for you. At the time slavery was in existence in America there were laws present in many States which made it a crime to teach slaves to read and write. This was so that the slaves could be kept ignorant and the threat of a slave rebellion kept to a minimum. For instance, a North Carolina statute reads, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That any free person, who shall hereafter teach, or attempt to teach, any slave within the State to read or write, the use of figures excepted, or shall give or sell to such slave or slaves any books or pamphlets, shall be liable to indictment in any court of record in this State having jurisdiction thereof, and upon conviction, shall, at the discretion of the court, if a white man or woman, be fined not less than one hundred dollars, nor more than two hundred dollars, or imprisoned; and if a free person of color, shall be fined, imprisoned, or whipped, at the discretion of the court, not exceeding thirty nine lashes, nor less than twenty lashes.”

Yet how many know that the Confederate General, Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson openly violated a similar law by teaching slaves to read and write so that they could partake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

How many are aware that the wife of Confederate Army General Robert E. Lee, Mary Custis Lee also taught many slave women to read and write, as well as how to sew. Mary Lee favored emancipation of those held in bondage and wanted to ensure that they were able to read and write, and have a skill that would allow for them to provide for themselves if emancipation ever happened.

So who were the racists, Lee, Jackson, Jefferson, who wanted to teach the slaves, or Lincoln who only wanted them off American soil because ‘we suffer from their presence?’ Yet whose monuments and statues are being torn down? Why, those who represent the Confederacy. And this is all because people are ignorant about the truth regarding who and what the Confederacy was, and what they truly stood for.

I’ll also bet that most people don’t know that the Constitution for the Confederate States of America banned the further importation of slaves into the Confederate States. Yet it’s true, “The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.” (Article 1, Section 9, Constitution of the Confederate States of America)

What gets me about all this is that many of these monuments have been in place for decades; if not a century. So why now, why is it all of a sudden that people are calling for their removal? Remember how at the beginning of this I spoke of how some things often take a life of their own and give credence to things that are not deserving of our attention? Well, this is one of those instances, and the ire that we are now witnessing is the result of a small group of people who are fanning the flames of racial discord to achieve a specific goal; that being either the erasure of the memory of our history and culture, or the suppression of our freedom of speech and expression.

All this began, at least how I see it, back in 2015 when Dylann Roof walked into the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church and opened fire; killing nine people. During the investigation into the motives behind Roof’s attack photos were found of him holding either guns, or Confederate Battle Flags. The media jumped on the fact that Roof had posed with that particular flag and began associating it with racism and hatred.

Soon afterwards we saw the public display of the Confederate Battle Flag become a divisive issue; causing some States to stop flying any flag with that image on them in public places. But that wasn’t enough; as I said these things take on lives of their own. As the flag wasn’t enough to satisfy these people, they quickly moved on to the monuments and statues which represent the Confederacy, or Civil War heroes.

Like I said in yesterday’s commentary; Pandora’s Box has been opened. Now the precedence has been set that anything which some group finds offensive can be banned, torn down, or restricted; and there’s no telling where it all will end. Well actually there is, the complete and utter loss of our freedom of speech, and our culture and history.

Let me tell you, Orwell must be rolling over in his grave. After all, Nineteen Eighty-Four was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual!

Have you ever heard the saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinions? I heard it a great many times growing up. But there was also something else my father used to repeat often that I think bears some attention. My father used to tell me from time to time, “Opinions are like armpits, we all have them and they all stink.” (My father used to use more colorful language than armpits, but I want to keep this PG so I didn’t use the word he did)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people holding different opinions on things, it’s what makes us all different; and that is okay. The problem comes when one side begins to find the opinions, or beliefs, of one side offensive, and they then take steps to either silence those opinions or force others to comply with their opinions or beliefs.

It’s okay for people to disagree on things, as long as they do so in a civilized fashion through open, honest debate. The problem arises when one side refuses to listen to facts and relies solely upon what others have told them, or how the things being said make them feel. You simply cannot have an open, honest debate with people who have no facts to support their position, and refuse to acknowledge the facts you bring to the table. What inevitably happens is that those without facts resort to name calling and insults because that is the only weapon they have to defend their beliefs and their precious feelings.

I know it may sound ludicrous, but why don’t we, instead of arguing, just strap on boxing gloves and whoever beats the crap out of the other person wins the argument. Or better yet, let’s resort to old fashioned duels, where the one who loses the argument dies? In principle it’s the same thing; particularly so when facts are of no importance in any debate; so why not resort to other means to settle arguments?

Sounds silly, doesn’t it? Well the fact that many out there are attempting to silence the views of people like me, or tear down monuments we respect and honor simply because they find them offensive sounds equally silly to me. Not only that, the position that these ‘offended’ people are taking is dangerous.

Have you ever heard the terms slippery slope and incrementalism? A slippery slope is something that, once you take that first step down it, it is hard to take a step back to where you started and you inevitably end up sliding further down a path you wish you had never stepped upon. Merriam Webster’s defines a slippery slope as: a course of action that seems to lead inevitably from one action or result to another with unintended consequences.

Incrementalism, on the other hand, refers to change which is brought about by small, often unnoticeable, degrees. People are far less likely to object to small minute changes, or restrictions of a right, than they are to sudden and drastic changes or restrictions. It’s like to old analogy of the frog and the boiling water; toss a frog into a pot of boiling water and it will jump out, but put it into a pot of cold water and gradually turn up the heat and it will become accustomed to the changes in temperature and remain in the water until it eventual is boiled to death.

The reason I brought those two terms up is because they describe perfectly what I am seeing happen across America today; and it all started with this whole nonsense of political correctness. When I was growing up if someone had mentioned the term politically correct, people would have associated the term with Communist Russia, and speech that was only authorized by the State, or general authority. In fact, prior to the early 90’s there were only scattered references to the term politically correct as it applies to speech within the U.S. It wasn’t until a series of articles appeared in the New York Times that the term politically correct or political correctness gained a foothold in America.

Those who claim to be politically correct may have good intentions at heart, but make no mistake about it political correctness is censorship. It is the silencing of views or opinions of those that are found to be hurtful or offensive by others; which is, by any definition, a clear violation of the freedom of speech.

That was the first step onto that slippery slope I mentioned moments ago. But those who wish to bring about drastic societal change aren’t going to sit back and rest on their laurels over the success of political correctness. Oh no, they are going to employ the methodology of incrementalism to further achieve their goals. That is why we are now witnessing monuments to Civil War heroes being torn down at an alarming rate across the former Confederate States of America.

It does not matter to these people that their whole argument in support of tearing down these monuments is based upon falsehoods; they will push forward until every single monument and statue dedicated to Civil War heroes are vanquished from public display.

You see, they tell us that these statues represent racism and hatred. But that’s a lie, they represent those who fought for State’s Rights and State Sovereignty. The Civil War was not, (and I don’t know how many times I must say this for it to sink in), fought over slavery. The Civil War was fought because Abraham Lincoln refused to allow the Southern States to secede in peace. Had Lincoln let them go in peace there would have been no war. Can you not see that?

Yes, slavery was one of the issues which led the Southern States to secede; but it was not the only one. By saying slavery was the only reason the Civil War was fought is like saying the tax on tea was the only reason the Colonists fought the American Revolution.

Lincoln himself declared that slavery was not the reason which led to war between the North and South. In his Inaugural Address Lincoln stated, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Then in a letter to his friend Horace Greeley, Lincoln writes, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”

Yet facts do not matter to those who are seeking to bring about social change in America. In fact, the dissemination of facts, or the truth, is harmful to their cause because it blows the justification for their position out of the water. That is why anyone who attempts to present the truth to these people are targeted and called Nazi’s; it is much easier to discredit the messenger than it is to disprove the message.

The sad thing is that these people who are supporting these groups such as Antifa are being used; played as fools. Do they honestly think that once all these Civil War monuments are gone that this will be over; finished? No, those behind the scenes, fanning the fires of discord will then set their sights on something else; possibly something the supporters of Antifa hold near and dear. What will they do then?

What’s at stake here is the freedom of speech and expression; that is their goal, the complete and utter eradication of freedom of speech and expression. It is just that right now they are targeting those whose beliefs the Antifa movement disagrees with; but soon they will find it is their beliefs that are the focus of attacks.

It’s like the old poem by Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

If you value freedom of speech and expression for yourself then you MUST value and respect it for others. The moment you take that first step onto the slippery slope of political correctness, and choose to believe that it is acceptable to silence the views of those you find offensive; or remove objects from public display that you disagree with, then you have opened Pandora’s Box and placed your beliefs and values at risk. Who is to say when the winds may shift direction and your views and beliefs are found to be politically incorrect?

Freedom is about freedom for everyone, not just those you happen to agree with. There’s an old saying; I may not like what you’re saying, but I’ll die defending your right to say it. I wish more people would take that to heart and make it their personal motto.

But as long as they don’t, as long as they ignore evidence which contradicts their position, and believe that it is acceptable to silence those they disagree with, things are only going to get worse; and one day we will all wake up not being free to think, speak, or display whatever we choose.

And I shouldn’t have to say this, but that is the life of a slave…

If there is one attribute which people display that upsets me more than all the others, it is willful ignorance. According to an article which appeared in the November 29, 2011 edition of Psychology Today there are 3 types of ignorance: simple ignorance, higher ignorance and willful ignorance. Every person on this planet is ignorant, including me. There are simply things that I don’t know anything about, and that’s all ignorance is, really; a lack of knowledge regarding a subject. Being ignorant is not a crime, nor is it a fault; unless of course one begins running off at the mouth about a subject they know absolutely nothing about.

Then there is higher ignorance, in which no matter how much one learns regarding a subject the person realizes that they will never know everything there is to know about it. Then there is willful ignorance; which, by the way, is the only form of ignorance with negative connotations.

One of the best definitions I’ve heard for willful ignorance is: The practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and well-founded arguments because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs. (Source: Urban Dictionary)

Nowhere in the United States is willful ignorance more abundant than when it comes to how much people know about their system of government and the reasons for which it was established. Yet in an 1816 letter to Charles Yancey, the author of our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, stated, “…if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was and never will be.”

Our Founding Fathers were not perfect men; no man is. But these men came together at just the right moment in time with the lofty belief that America could be a nation conceived in freedom and liberty. They established a system of government in which they hoped would secure that freedom for future generations with the minimal amount of governmental interference in our lives.

Am I saying that this system of government or the Constitution which created it was perfect…absolutely not? Even Ben Franklin felt it was not perfect, and he gave the following reasons, “I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does.”

But for our system of government to work effectively, as it was intended it operate, one crucial thing must occur; the people must know the reasons for which it was established, the powers which were given to it, and most importantly, ensure that those whom they elect NEVER overstep the limits placed upon their authority.

That has NOT happened!!!

I wonder how many people realize that for a century and a half the citizens who comprised the 13 original Colonies were perfectly content to remain British subjects under the jurisdiction of the King of England. What would cause them to change their minds and want to seek independence in a period of just over a decade? Had one studied both the philosophies of the men who influenced the thinking of our Founders, and the period leading up to the Revolution one would find that what caused our Founders to risk all they had for independence was the Kings intrusion upon their freedom and their ability to govern themselves in a manner they felt best served their own interests.

I do not wish to go into a lengthy discussion of all the injustices heaped upon the Colonists by King George III and Parliament, but I do wish to spend a few moments discussing two crucial things that occurred once the Colonies gained their independence.

But before I do there is one word that I must spend a few moments talking about for any of what I am about to say make any sense. That word is sovereignty. Sovereignty is defined as the supreme political authority in a nation or state. People today may believe that sovereignty rests with our government…but that belief is incorrect! In the United States sovereignty resides in the people who make up this nation. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in one of its earliest cases, Chisholm v Georgia, with Chief Justice John Jay ruling, “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…”

That is the first crucial point that people need to understand; that the supreme political authority in America at the end of the American Revolution rested in the people, not the government. The second is the status held by the States themselves. At the end of almost every war the opposing sides always send delegates to meet to hammer out a peace agreement; and the American Revolution was no different. In 1783 three delegates from the Colonies, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay travelled to England to discuss the terms of a treaty of peace between the two nations.

The resulting document is known as the Treaty of Paris, (1783) and one the passage I wish to focus your attention upon states, “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.”

If, as the Treaty of Paris states, the Colonies, or States as they were now called, were free sovereign and independent, why would they need a centralized government to rule over them? One must understand that by the time the Treaty of Paris was signed most of the States had already written their own constitution which established a system of government to manage the affairs of their States. So again, why the need for a centralized government?

A great many reasons were given by those who pushed for a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation, the most important of which were the Congresses inability to collect revenue and its inability to effectively regulate commerce between the States.

We all know what happened though; at least I hope we all know that is. Instead of amending the Articles of Confederation, James Madison and his fellow delegates tossed them into the trash bin and began writing a completely new document; a Constitution for a much stronger centralized form of government.

This delegation was looked upon by some as being harmful to the liberty and independence of the States which was so recently won by the former Colonies. Patrick Henry declared that he smelled a rat in Philadelphia. Rhode Island refused to send delegates to attend this convention, and John Lansing and Robert Yates of New York left the convention due to the fact that the delegates in attendance had overstepped their legal authority.

Although a Constitution was eventually written and later ratified, it was not without a great deal of opposition that it happened; both during the convention which produced it, and afterwards in the various State Ratification Assemblies. I could spend days writing about the various arguments in opposition to the proposed Constitution offered by men such as Patrick Henry, George Mason, and those who went under the pseudonyms of Brutus, Cato, Centinel, and the Federal Farmer, but that would only bore you.

Yet there was a common theme that ran through many of their writings, as well as the arguments found in Madison’s notes on the convention which produced the Constitution; that being the fact that many felt that a strong central government posed a serious threat to the sovereignty of the States.
Unless you are more than 104 years old there is not an American alive today who has ever seen the time when the individual States have had any say in what laws our government passes. Yet those who produced our Constitution sought to ensure that the States were essential component parts of the central government they sought to create. The manner in which they sought to ensure this was by the creation of a bicameral Congress; with one house filled with members chosen directly by the people, and the other filled with members chosen by the State Legislatures. No law could be passed by the central government without having passed through both houses of Congress; thus ensuring that the States retained a say in what laws the central government passed.

Although it is my belief that the States lost their sovereignty when Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865, the end came officially almost 50 years later in 1913 with the ratification of the 17th Amendment; making the election of Senators by a popular vote of the people. From that day forward the States were no longer essential component parts of the central government, they became subordinate in authority and power to a consolidated central government; exactly what men like Patrick Henry feared would happen if this Constitution were to be ratified.

Just to prove that I’m not making all this stuff up, I now offer a few select quotes from those who argued both for and against ratification of our Constitution based upon this very issue. In Federalist No. 9 Alexander Hamilton writes, “The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.”

Then in Federalist No. 32 Hamilton once again reiterates this fact by saying, “An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.”

Now that I’ve proven that the intent of the Founders was to include the States as essential component parts of the central government, let’s look at what some felt the Constitution would eventually do if ratified.

On the day of June 5, 1788, Patrick Henry rose in the Virginia Ratification Assembly and gave a lengthy speech, voicing his staunch opposition to the ratification of the proposed Constitution. It is Mr. Henry’s opening words, however, that I wish to focus your attention upon, “I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and of America may depend on this: Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England-a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a Confederacy, like Holland-an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a Confederacy to a consolidated Government.”

What Henry speaks of is the difference between a federal form of government and a national one. A federal form of government is one in which component parts unite into a confederation for certain purposes, while retaining all the sovereignty of free and independent units. A national one, on the other hand, is one in which all component parts are swallowed up, consolidated into one single entity with a single central government ruling over them. This was Henry’s fear, that eventually the States would lose their sovereignty to the government outlined by the proposed Constitution.

Even Thomas Jefferson, author of our Declaration of Independence, warned of the dangers of such a consolidation, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” (Source: Letter to Charles Hammond, July, 1821)

Yet these were not the only fears people back then had in regards to the proposed Constitution. Many felt that it did little to secure the rights of the people who inhabited the newly formed States from intrusion by the government it produced. That is why many would not agree to its ratification unless a Bill of Rights was included; to which the Federalists eventually agreed.

People today mistakenly believe that the Bill of Rights grants them the specific rights spoken of in those first ten amendments to the Constitution. They couldn’t be MORE wrong!!! What the Bill of Rights does is declare that these rights exist and that the central government has no authority to enact any law which restricts them.

This means the President cannot do anything which violates any of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights; such as authorizing the NSA to intrude upon our privacy to keep us safe from terrorism. What this means is that Congress can pass no law which restricts our ability to fully exercise any of the rights spoken of in the Bill of Rights; such as it has by passing an assault weapons ban. What this means is that the Supreme Court cannot hand down any ruling defining what is meant by any particular right; such as it has done in regards to denying people the freedom of speech by upholding bans on how people may discuss religion, or worship as they see fit simply because others disagree with those particular religious views.
Were these two things the only things our government has done which violate the specifics of how our government was designed to operate, it would be sufficient for the most freedom loving of us to oppose its actions; but unfortunately that is not all our government has done which violates the Constitution.

If there is one thing the people of this country fail to realize, either that or they simply don’t care, it is that the Constitution is not a list of suggestions as to the organization of our government, the distribution of powers, and the areas which our government may touch upon when passing laws; it is, in fact, a law which governs both the government in what they can do, and the people in asking what government can do for them.

This was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1866 when they ruled, “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of men than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.” (Source: Ex parte Milligan)

Today the boundaries which separate each branch of our government have become so blurred as to be almost non-existent. If the President doesn’t get what he wants from Congress he writes an Executive Order. The Congress gives away its specifically delegated power such as it has done in granting the President certain war powers without them having to issue a declaration of war, and the Supreme Court legislates from the bench, upholding laws through construction that it was never intended our government be allowed to pass.

On top of all that the people continue to ask government to do things for them that it simply is not authorized to do. It’s a total nightmare, and nobody seems to notice, or care. Yet Madison warned of this in 1785 when he wrote, “The preservation of a free government requires, not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained, but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people.” (Source: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments)

How did all this happen? Well, it certainly did not happen overnight; it took decades of gradual encroachments upon our rights and usurpations of power for it to come to this. An argument could be made that it all began way before the Civil War when the federal government began offering subsidies to industrial interests in return for their support in getting certain candidates elected; such as when the Republicans took the taxes generated in the South and distributed them in the North for infrastructure improvements which benefitted Northern industrial interests.

Yet in 1792 a young James Madison argued against these very subsidies, stating, “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” (Source: Speech opposing the Cod Fisheries Bill, February 3, 1792)

Yet if there is one things politicians across the eons have learned, it is that the easiest way to bribe the people into supporting their candidacy is to offer the people benefits if they would only vote for them. Have you not noticed how every candidate seeking office speaks not of how well they intend to uphold the Constitutional limitations imposed upon the office they seek, but how much they promise to do for the people who vote for them?
Just look at all our government has done to provide for and take care of the people. There was FDR’s New Deal which gave us Social Security. There was LBJ’s Great Society to reduce poverty. Then of course there was Barack Obama and his Affordable Care Act; which Trump promised to repeal, but instead has chosen to produce his own version of a bill which is without any constitutional authority to enact.

On top of all that our country has been at war with a nameless faceless enemy that has no end in sight; all to keep us safe from the boogeyman terrorists. While I’m not denying that there may be a terrorist threat out there, I am saying that we aren’t making matters any better by becoming involved in all the intrigue and intervention in the affairs of sovereign nations. If someone attacks the U.S. then by all means, go kick their asses and teach them a lesson. But DO NOT occupy that land for the next hundred generations and tell these people how to live. That only breeds more hatred and animosity towards us.

I truly hate to be blunt and rude, but most people today can’t see beyond the ends of their noses as it pertains to the almost limitless number of violations of the Constitution and their rights that their government is guilty of. Yet they still support this same government by going to the polls every time there is an election and choosing another crop of candidates who have no intention of abiding by the limits placed upon our government by the Constitution. On top of all that they say I lose my right to complain about how screwed up things are in this country because I don’t vote.

Lunacy I tell you, lunacy. People vote for criminals and then tell me I cannot complain when these criminals violate my rights and overstep their legal authority by passing laws which micromanage every aspect of my life.

To top it all off people look at me as if I’ve lost my mind when I say that the best thing that could happen to this country would be our government being dismantled and all those in it brought to trial and prosecuted for their crimes against us, and against humanity.

It all comes down to the fact that the people of this country have forgotten who the boss is; them or the government. They believe the government is, and that it can, and should be used as a tool to bring about social justice and social reform.

Not when it violates my rights as an individual it can’t!!!

People really need to read the Declaration of Independence, the very first organic law which established the United States as a free and independent nation. They might find enlightenment if they could but just understand the meaning of the following words, “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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Most people today would not even consider opposing the laws passed by their government; even if these laws violated all of their rights. Most people would just bend over and grab their ankles and submit to the authority of tyrants while their most sacred rights are being stripped away from them. (And I’m sorry if by saying that I conjure up images which offend you)

I’m gonna tell you something, the other night I had a rather strange dream. I dreamt that for some reason I was issued a subpoena to testify before Congress. Once I was sworn in I refused to answer any of the questions that were posed to me and the Chairman of the committee declared that I was in contempt of Congress. Upon hearing this I stood up and said, “You’re damned right I’m in contempt, I hold you all in contempt; every goddamned one of you for destroying the principles of freedom and liberty that our Founders fought so hard to secure for us.” While that was the extent of my dream, I might add that I also hold contempt for those who remain willfully ignorant of the truth when it is presented to them.

I think people actually fear me because of the principles I speak of in my articles. I think the idea of freedom truly scares some people because it means the safety net which protects them should they fail would be gone. Yet that is what America was originally intended to be, a nation of free men and women with the ability to live their lives as they saw fit without any governmental control over it, or restrictions upon their rights.

Things have gotten so far out of whack that I don’t honestly know if they can be restored to the intent of our Founders without a revolution or a total collapse and a few decades of suffering under a tyrant before the people once again find their spines and take a stand for freedom.

Maybe Tytler was right when he said, “Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.” Maybe what America truly needs is a firsthand taste of what the ignorance, apathy and complacency of the people have wrought.

As Judge Learned Hand said in his 1944 Spirit of Liberty speech, “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”

Maybe the love of liberty has died in the hearts of most people, and if that is the case then there is no hope for our future. But don’t count on me going out silently or without a fight. And know this, there are others out there just like me.

When one decides that they wish to enlist in the military one of the first things they are required to do is swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I wonder though, how many have ever stopped to ask what purpose our military serves; I know I have. Although the U.S. military does not have a mission statement of its own, the Department of Defense does, and theirs says, “The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country.” (Source: https://www.defense.gov/About/)

You can’t go anywhere on any public road without seeing at least one vehicle that has one of those ‘Support our Troops’ stickers plastered across it somewhere. Don’t get me wrong, I served in the U.S. Air Force for almost 14 years before deciding to call it quits and return to civilian life; so I know the hardships our military men and women undergo to defend our nation; not to mention the hardships suffered by their families as well. But that’s just it, are they really defending America from legitimate threats when we have men and women stationed all over the planet?

Did you know that, according to reports, the United States has 662 military bases outside the continental U.S.; spread across 38 different countries? As Korea has been in the news recently, let’s take a look at how many bases and personnel are in South Korea. I did a tour in Korea, stationed at Kwang Ju Air Base in the southwestern part of that country. During the time I spent there I did tdy’s to 11 different bases there; and I know for a fact that I didn’t go to all of them. As of current statistics there are 28,500 U.S. military forces stationed in Korea; that’s over a quarter million U.S. servicemen and women stationed in Korea alone. If the goal of the U.S. military is to defend the United States, how are those 28,500 troops accomplishing that mission while stationed in Korea?

Yet if I were to suggest that the U.S. withdraw every single U.S. serviceman/woman from overseas and bring them back to U.S. soil people would look at me as if I was a madman. But, what would YOU think if Russia or China was to begin deploying troops all over the world, with 28,000 Russian or Chinese troops stationed right here in the U.S.? Wouldn’t that upset you just a little bit? Why should it be any different for the people of those countries who view U.S. troops on their soil as an invasion of their sovereignty, and view those occupying their country as ‘the enemy.’

Then there is this whole War on Terror initiated by President George W. Bush. America is fond of declaring war on things it cannot defeat. Look at our wars against crime, obesity and drugs if you don’t believe me. How can we win a war when we have no clear idea of who the enemy is? How can we win a war against an ideology or belief?

I know this is going to offend the politically correct, but let’s face the facts; out of all the recent supposed terrorist attacks against the U.S., what has been the overwhelming common thread? Of all these so called terrorist attacks almost every single one of them has been perpetrated by a follower of Islam. Now I’m not saying all Muslims are terrorists, but I am saying that most terrorists are Muslim. I keep hearing that the radicalized Muslims who want to bring about death and destruction to the U.S. constitute anywhere from 5-25% of the total number of practicing Muslims. Let’s say the number is 10%, if there are a billion practicing Muslims in the world that still means there are an estimated 10 million who seek to kill us or bring the U.S. to its knees.

Now let me ask you something; if you were to see a room full of Muslims peacefully praying to Allah, can you tell me with any certainty which ones have hate in their hearts for America and which ones don’t? Yet not only do we not wish to address the fact that Islam does pose a threat to our way of life, we want to open our doors to more refugees who may or may not be coming here because they are pissed that our military intervention in their country has forced them to flee their homeland.

Makes perfect sense to me; yet how many people protested when President Trump attempted to put a halt to all refugees from predominantly Muslim countries until they could be properly vetted to ensure they had no ties to terrorism?

Make no mistake about it, Islam, and more specifically, radicalized extremist Islam is our enemy in this war on terror, and until we accept the fact that we cannot tell a good Muslim from a bad Muslim, we should be very careful about who we allow to come to live in our country where they could commit possible acts of terror against the American people.

But I’m beginning to stray off topic, and I want to remain focused on the real issue here; the fact that the U.S. military is being used not to defend our country from attack, but to project U.S. might and protect American business interests abroad.

Of all the ventures our government touches upon, war is the most profitable for all involved; except of course for those who do the actual fighting and dying. How many of you know the name Smedley Butler? Butler was a major general in the United States Marine Corps, and at the time of his death the most highly decorated United States Marine who had ever served his country. Butler once said that war is a racket, that “It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”

Have you ever stopped to think about the cost of waging a war? Not only do you have to pay the soldiers who fight them, you also have to buy the bullets, guns, planes, tanks and ships as well. Then there are the logistical costs of moving armies into the field of battle to do the actual fighting. Whenever war is fought, someone is making huge profits. And it’s not just those who make the bullets, tanks, planes and ships who profit, it is the banks as well. Typically when war is fought the nations involved have to borrow the money to finance these wars. What happens when you borrow money? Why, you pay interest upon it. And who gets that interest? Why, the banks which do the lending.

Depending upon which source you go to, this war on terror that we have been fighting since 9/11 has cost the U.S. upwards of $4.7 trillion, and the debt that we are incurring to fight it has no signs of slowing down. It would seem we have not paid attention to the warning issued by James Madison all those years ago, “Each generation should be made to bear the burden of its own wars, instead of carrying them on, at the expense of other generations.”

But war is profitable not only for the bomb makers and banks; it is also profitable for U.S. business interests, who, just like parasites, thrive off a perpetual state of war. Look at Halliburton, the company which former President Dick Cheney was once the CEO of. In the Iraq War alone Halliburton made a whopping $39.5 billion in profits from the contracts it got to do everything from providing services to our troops to rebuilding Iraq after we had bombed it to hell and back. And that’s just one company, there are many more who profit mightily from war and the destruction it causes.

With all that money being made by all these companies, do you honestly believe that they want peace in the world? War is their business, and profits are good only as long as a state of war exists for which they can sell the services they provide. You must be very naive if you don’t think that this military industrial complex does not exert a great deal of pressure and influence upon our government; especially as it pertains to our foreign policy and the use of military force abroad.

Did you know that in 1961, when I was but 3 years old, the President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered his Farewell Address which has become known also as his Military Industrial Complex Speech? In it Eisenhower warned of the dangers which an ever present and growing military industrial complex posed to our country and our liberty.

A portion of Eisenhower’s speech is as follows:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Yet it is his final sentence which sums up all that has gone wrong with the growth of this military industrial complex; “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

And since I’ve already quoted James Madison once, I may as well do it again. Madison also gave us another warning we have failed to heed, “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst.foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”

Madison also warned, “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” Does that not even remotely cause you to think about all the losses of liberty we have suffered since 9/11? If it doesn’t I have to ask; what rock have you been hiding under?
If our military’s sole purpose is to defend America from attack, then is that why it actually does; or does it serve the purpose of perpetuating the profits of the military industrial complex and the bottom line of the banks that finance a perpetual state of war? Is our military truly defending freedom as we are being told, or are they defending U.S. business interests abroad?

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

So, the next time you think about putting one of those ‘Support our Troops’ stickers on your car, or criticizing someone who doesn’t stand behind our governments use of our military to wage its wars of imperialism abroad, I would ask that you think back to the oath that all enlisted personnel take upon entering the armed forces. That oath does not say that those entering the service are bound to support whatever their government tells them is their mission; it does not say that their mission is to secure profits for U.S. business interests, it states first and foremost, “I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”

To me, patriotism is not standing behind our government and its use of our military whenever it sees fit. To me patriotism is standing behind our Constitution and the principles upon which this nation was founded.

If some country directly attacks the United States I will be the first to get in line to stand behind our military in defending our country; only to the extent to which our enemies are vanquished from our shores and the safety and security of America restored. I will not, however, stand behind the unlawful use of our military to make the banking industry and the military industrial complex rich.

If you really want to stand behind our troops, let them do their job of defending our country from whatever enemies come our way; let them go in, kick some ass, and then come home. Nation building and occupying a sovereign nation after war is NOT part of their job description. And if companies like Halliburton want to profit from war, let them bid on the open market with all the other countries of the world, and let the country that needs the services they provide decide which company to choose from. But keep our government out of it; they have no right to give out contracts to anyone to rebuild a country after our military has gone in and blew it all to hell.

This may not sound very patriotic to some of you, but maybe that’s because your understanding of what it means to be a patriot is misguided, if not flat out wrong. Mark Twain once said that patriotism is standing behind your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. When our government uses our military to make others rich at the cost of the lives of our men and women in uniform, then that is not a case in which I choose to support my government; and truthfully if the men and women in uniform understood their oaths of enlistment, neither would they.

Numerous times I have been asked why I spend so much time writing about one specific period of American History; the Civil War. There are many reasons actually. First off I have distant kin on my father’s side that fought on both sides during that conflict; so it interests me to know what they fought for and what the Civil War did to America and the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed.

Another reason is, first and foremost I am a seeker of truth and no other period of our country’s history has seen one side and their cause plundered, subjugated, slandered and defamed as has been the Confederacy been ever since that fateful day at Appomattox Courthouse when Robert E. Lee surrendered. People talk of the blot upon our history that was slavery, the way in which the South was treated in the years after the end of the Civil War and today’s attempts to erase all monuments to their cause is something that any true freedom loving American should be ashamed of.

It was bad enough that the South lost their war for independence from an overbearing and tyrannical government; it was bad enough that, in losing, their entire infrastructure was brought to ruin; it was bad enough that one out of four Southern men died in the four years of fighting; but then to have the government rub their noses in their defeat with the horrors of Reconstruction is/was simply too much.

History books and revisionist historians will tell you that Reconstruction was our government helping the South recover and get back on its feet after the war ended. Phooey; Reconstruction was our government subjugating the defeated Southern States and attempting to kill the spirit which led them to believe they had the right to secede and be self governing.

In the Steven Spielberg film Lincoln there is a scene where Lincoln and Congressman Thaddeus Stevens are having a conversation in regards to how to proceed as it pertains to the ratification of the 13th Amendment. In that scene Stevens makes the following comment, “When the war ends, I intend to push for full equality, the Negro vote and much more. Congress shall mandate the seizure of every foot of rebel land and every dollar of their property. We’ll use their confiscated wealth to establish hundreds of thousands of free Negro farmers, and at their side soldiers armed to occupy and transform the heritage of traitors. We’ll build up a land down there of free men and free women and free children and freedom. The nation needs to know that we have such plans.” That comes closer to the truth of what Reconstruction was than the history books tell us, but it does not begin to describe the suffering wrought upon the South after they surrendered and returned to their homes to resume their lives.

After the war ended no one loyal to the Confederacy was allowed to hold public office, which means that pretty much all Southern men were disqualified from holding positions of authority within the South. Those vacancies still had to be filled though, and they were filled by both soldiers loyal to the Union and Northern Carpetbaggers who came to the South after the war for the chance to plunder and humiliate a defeated people. Now I’m not saying there weren’t those who did not go to the South with good intentions and with only true reconciliation in their hearts; but they were few and far between when one considers how many people moved south to participate in the Reconstruction efforts after the war.

In Claude Bower’s book, The Tragic Era, (1929), he states that the years of Reconstruction, “…were years of revolutionary turmoil, with the elemental passions predominant. . . . The prevailing note was one of tragedy. . . . Never have American public men in responsible positions, directing the destiny of the nation, been so brutal, hypocritical, and corrupt. The constitution was treated as a doormat on which politicians and army officers wiped their feet after wading in the muck. . . . The southern people literally were put to the torture . . . (by) rugged conspirators . . . (who) assumed the pose of philanthropists and patriots.”

Bowers is not alone in expressing those sentiments; political scientist John W. Burgess of Columbia University declared the period known as Reconstruction to be the “…most soul-sickening spectacle that Americans had ever been called upon to behold.” And the thing is, Burgess served in the Union Army, fighting against the South. One would think his loyalty would be to the North, which make his comments even more telling, because the suffering of the South must have been truly horrible for a former Union soldier to say that about them.

One would think that after the war the South would be allowed to go back to governing itself; after all they were still sovereign and independent States…weren’t they? Article 4 of the Constitution guarantees to each State a Republican form of government, yet after the Civil War this promise and guarantee was not kept or upheld. After the Civil War the Congress demanded that all Southerners seeking office take, what has been come to be called, an Ironclad Oath; that is that they would be forced to swear an oath that they had not been loyal to the Confederate Cause before they were allowed to hold any political office.

This precluded most men whose homes were in the South. Yet these seats of power still needed to be filled, government needed to once again begin the process of governing the conquered Southerners. What ended up happening is that the South was divided up into districts, with each district being under the governorship of a former Union officer. The various seats of power within the local government were then filled with Carpetbaggers who fled to the South after the war to both humiliate and plunder the conquered Southerners. There may very well have been those who went South after the war with the intention of helping the South get back on its feet after a long bloody war, but they were they exception, not the rule.

So basically what happened is that the South was denied a Republican form of government, in that they were not allowed to vote for those who would best represent them and their needs as Southerners. Instead they were ruled over by Yankees from the North who subjugated and plundered them.

Another thing which history books do not teach is the fact that one of the terms of Reconstruction was that before the South could send its representatives back to Congress they would be required to ratify the 14th Amendment. That is flat out blackmail, yet it happened and today everyone ignores that and praises the 14th Amendment for providing equal protection under the law for all. What about the equal protection of the Southerners who were being subjugated and plundered all while this precious amendment was being ratified?

The thing about Americans is that they rarely ever read documents in their entirety; they often memorize specific portions, or catch phrases which explain its intent. Could there possibly be more to the 14th Amendment than the mere fact that it declares that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law?

Are you aware that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment obliterates the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence? Here, read it for yourself: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

You see, the Civil War was more of a war for independence than it was an actual civil war fought by two segments of a nation. The South simply wanted to leave the Union and establish a system of government that would best suit their needs. Is that not the exact same principle spoken of by Jefferson in his Declaration of Independence? Yet the 14th Amendment declares that anyone who rebels against the government is disqualified from holding any public office.

What else does the 14th Amendment say? Well, 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. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

While the Civil War may have led to the emancipation of the slaves in America due to the ratification of the 13th Amendment, the 14th Amendment made debt slaves of each and every person living in America; as we all were not to question the validity of the debt incurred by our government. And who, may I ask, is ultimately responsible for paying off that debt? Why we are, that’s who; the taxpaying citizens of America. Is it just a coincidence that less than 50 years after the Civil War ended our nation established two things; another central bank and a tax upon the income of the people?

Whenever I attempt to discuss the Civil War with people all I hear in response from them is slavery, Slavery, SLAVERY. This tunnel vision blinds people to the horrors committed by their government against, not only a defeated and conquered people, (The South), but upon us all by the complete abandonment of the very things Lincoln himself spoke of in his Gettysburg Address, “…government of the people, by the people, and for the people…”

The Civil War, and more specifically, the cause of the Confederacy, was the last dying gasp of true Republican government, and government instituted to protect the freedom and rights of those it represents. Our country has been on life support ever since and are simply sitting around awaiting the eventual demise of freedom and liberty.

That is why I harp so much about the Civil War; as it was the single most important period in American history aside from the moments we declared our independence from Britain and ratified our Constitution. The defeat of the Confederacy is the starting line from which all the abuses of powers our government currently exercises began at. It is therefore crucial to understand what that war was truly fought over if one wants to understand what must be done to truly make America great again.

Well I hope you’ve learned something. I also hope that I’ve piqued your interest and that you begin researching this crucial period of American history on your own. You see, I’ve only scraped the surface as to the crimes committed by our government both during and after the Civil War. It’s truly a sad commentary that a war criminal such as Lincoln has a monument dedicated to him in our nation’s capital, yet the true heroes of the Civil War are seeing monuments dedicated to them torn down with increasing frequency by people who have been taught that the Civil War was fought solely over slavery, and that anyone who supports or represents the Confederate cause is a racist pig.

The truth can set you free, but only if you seek it out and listen to it…

So, if the Civil War was not fought over slavery, what was it fought over? To truly answer that question, one must look backwards in time almost 75 yrs in time to when the Constitution was being argued over in the various State Assemblies. When it became Virginia’s time to hold an assembly which would vote upon the issue of whether or not to adopt the newly proposed Constitution, the Federalists faced some stiff opposition in the form of men like Patrick Henry and George Mason.

Of the 170 speeches delivered over the course of Virginia’s ratifying assembly, 179 of them were made by four men; James Madison, Edmund Randolph, who were both Federalists, and then Patrick Henry and George Mason who were staunch anti-Federalists. The funny thing is the name anti-Federalist is a misnomer because in reality the anti-Federalists stood for federalism.

Prior to the Constitution even being written, let alone argued over among the various States, the States were sovereign entities capable of passing whatever laws they deemed were in the best interests of the citizens of their States. In a way America was more like Europe with its various independent nations such as Spain, France, England, Germany and others. In our case, however, we had Massachusetts, Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, etc. etc.

Patrick Henry vehemently argued against ratification of the Constitution because he believed it did away with, or would eventually do away with, the sovereignty of the States; forming a consolidated nation with the government created by the Constitution at the head.

Prior to our Constitution going into effect America was a Confederation of States who had joined together under a government, created by them, for their mutual benefit. As the States voluntarily joined together in a Union, they could at any time also leave that Union. It all depended upon whether remaining a part of the Union was either beneficial or detrimental to their interests.

There is a saying that I’ve heard from time to time which, if you think about what it says, brings this into sharper focus. The statement says: We are a nation with a government, not a government with a nation. As all sovereign authority rests with the people, they can at any time join into confederations or create systems of government to provide for their needs. At the same time, they can leave these confederations or disband these governments they have created; all is within their power and authority as the true sovereigns of our nation.

Henry feared that if the people accepted this Constitution, and the government it created went into operation, that the sovereign authority of both the people and the States would be lost to the government the Constitution created. The Civil War proved him right in fearing that.

The Civil War was not fought over slavery it was fought over the disagreement between the States and their central government over a State’s right to leave a voluntary union. I can’t count the times I’ve said that had Lincoln allowed the seceded Southern States to go in peace there would have been no WAR and over half a million people would not have died in it.

Yet Lincoln’s little war did far more than just cost the life of over half a million people and the complete devastation of the South, it also took sight upon many of the underlying principles our system of government was established to protect. As the old saying goes, let the truth be heard…

In the beginning of the tensions which led to what we now call the Civil War, only 7 States originally chose to leave the Union and form the Confederacy. Abraham Lincoln believed that the States had no authority to leave the Union and considered their doing so rebellion against the legitimate federal authority. So he did what all dictators do, raised an army to force their obedience to his will.

Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to quell, what he called the rebellion in the Cotton States. Not only did this not sit well with many States, it was flat out unconstitutional. The Constitution grants Congress, not the President with the power of declaring war and raising armies. This is what led four other States, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina, to secede. Of these four I would like to take a few moments discussing the reason Virginia gave for deciding to leave the Union and join the Confederacy.

When Lincoln told his Secretary of War to call upon the States loyal to the Union to provide 75,000 troops to repress the rebellion in the Cotton States, Virginia’s governor, John Letcher could not believe what he was being told. In fact, in his response to War Secretary Simon Cameron he said, “I received your telegram of the 15th, the genuineness of which I doubted.”

However, upon receiving confirmation that the Lincoln administration was, in fact, calling for the States to provide forces to invade the Southern States and compel their adherence to the Union, Governor Letcher went on to write a letter that pales only to the Declaration of Independence in its glory. I provide it here in its entirety for your edification:

SIR: I received your telegram of the 15th, the genuineness of which I doubted. Since that time (have received your communication, mailed the same day, in which I am requested to detach from the militia of the State of Virginia “the quota designated in a table,” which you append, “to serve as infantry or riflemen for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged.”

JOHN LETCHER.

If you’ll notice, not a word is spoken in regards to the plight of the slaves. The sole concern was Lincoln’s refusal to allow the Southern States to secede peacefully and his call to arms of Union soldiers to invade them, and force their obedience to his interpretation of Presidential authority.

Lincoln saw himself as guardian of the Union, and with a large portion of that Union having seceded, he saw it unraveling right before his very eyes. What made matters worse for Lincoln is that Maryland, which was to the North of Washington D.C., had a large percentage of its population which held sympathies for the Southern cause. Yet Maryland had chosen to remain neutral in any conflict between the North and the South. However, the Maryland State Legislature did vote, 53-12 to call a special session to order to discuss the matter of seceding if Virginia chose to secede.

Lincoln could not allow Maryland to secede and join the Confederacy. If it did Washington D.C. would be surrounded by hostile forces. So instead Lincoln had his generals arrest all those in the Maryland Legislature who supported secession; essentially shutting down the Legislature for a lack of a quorum. Not only was this blatantly beyond his authority, it also violated a fundamental principle protected by the Bill of Rights; the freedom of speech. If Lincoln could have people arrested for merely discussing secession, what other things might Lincoln do?

I’m certain the phrase Writ of Habeas Corpus rings a bell, but I wonder how many people know what it actually is. A Writ of Habeas Corpus is a legal term providing a person charged with a crime the right to stand before a judge and hear the charges which have been brought against them. A Writ of Habeas Corpus protects people from being imprisoned without charges for indefinite periods of time and is a fundamental legal principle in America which was brought over from English Common Law. Only Congress may suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, (See Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution)

Yet Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, with the most important case being in regards to the arrest and detention of one John Merryman. Merryman was a cavalryman in Maryland who had burnt bridges and destroyed telegraph lines in Maryland in his efforts to hinder Union Forces. Merryman was arrested by Union forces and held in military detention without charges. Yet he contested his imprisonment without charges, and the case eventually was heard by the Supreme Court where Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that Lincoln’s actions were unconstitutional. (See Ex parte Merryman). This incensed Lincoln so much that, even though he later rescinded it, he issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for his opposition to Lincoln’s actions.

The of course there are the numerous, upwards of 300 I believe, newspapers which Lincoln had his troops shut down because they printed articles criticizing his war against the South; not to mention the imprisonment of upwards of 14,000 citizens for their opposition to his policies during the war.

Then of course there was Lincolns ‘total war’ concept in which civilians and their property often became the target of his Union generals. Entire cities were shelled into oblivion or burnt to the ground in his war to defeat the rebels in the South.

There was Sherman’s March to the Sea, a campaign which wrought untold destruction between the cities of Atlanta and Savannah Georgia. Sherman’s March to the Sea was less a military campaign than it was an effort to devastate, confiscate, and destroy everything in his path between the two cities in Georgia. It is estimated that his March to the Sea cause $100 million, (almost $1.4 billion in today’s dollars) worth of damage to the Georgia infrastructure. He wrecked 300 miles of railroad, destroyed numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. He seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules and 13,000 head of cattle. He also confiscated almost 10 million pounds of corn and another 10 million pounds of fodder, while destroying cotton gins and mills along the way. It is said that even to this day his path of destruction can be seen from space as a scar on the face of the Georgia landscape.

Let us not also forget the burning of the Shenandoah Valley by troops under command of Union General Philip Sheridan. Sheridan sought to, not only defeat any rebel forces in the Shenandoah Valley, but to destroy the regions food producing ability, thereby weakening the resolve of the pro-Confederate supporters in the region.

Union Commanding General Ulysses S. Grant wrote to Sheridan, “If you can possibly spare a division of Cavalry, send them through Loudoun County and destroy and carry off all the crops, animals, negroes and all men under fifty years of age capable of bearing arms. In this way you will get many if Mosby’s men. All male citizens under fifty can be fairly held as prisoners of war, and not as citizen prisoners.” That’s like saying, “Arrest everyone and hopefully we’ll get all the bad guys too.” What about the rights of the innocent, do they not matter? Apparently, to Lincoln and his generals they did not.

These are just a few of the crimes that Lincoln and his commanding officers were guilty of during Lincoln’s war of aggression against a people who only wanted to live their lives in peace under a government of their own creating. Lincoln’s little war affected not only those in the Southern States which had seceded, but those in the North who opposed him. It could very well be said that the Civil War was not so much a war against the South, it was a war against many, if not all, the principles the system of government he headed was established to protect.

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is regarded as being one of the finest speeches ever given by an American President. In it he states, “…that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

It states volumes about the character of Abraham Lincoln that he would state that a government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish, yet that is exactly what his actions did; caused a free and consensual government to perish, to be replaced by one in which the government can, and ought to use force to compel obedience to its dictates

In part 3 of this 3 part series I will discuss the aftermath of the Civil War and the lingering effects we still feel today.

Stay tuned….

History books teach us that Abraham Lincoln was a great President; that he held the Union together and freed the slaves. But there is something we all need to consider before relying solely upon history books for the true history of Abraham Lincoln and his war of aggression against the South, and it can be found in a small quote made by Winston Churchill, “History is written by the victors.” I wonder what the history books would have to say about ole Honest Abe and his war had the South won the Civil War.

I know for a fact that, were you to ask people they would tell you that the Civil War was fought over slavery. I know this because I have gotten into many an argument attempting to show people that this was not the case. Nobody wants to believe that some guy who works in a fruit packaging plant could know more about the true history of the Civil War than the authors of the history books people read in school.

You see, that’s just it; I don’t know more; the authors of these books probably know all the same facts I do. But there is this thing called a lie of omission, in which you omit a part of the truth to provide a certain spin on events. If certain truths are withheld from our children then the only truths they will grow up knowing are the ones they read in their history books. I have only taken the time to learn the entire story; and what I’ve learned paints an entirely different picture of that period of American History than do the books I learned from back when I made my way through the public indoctrination centers; (schools).

History books paint the South as cruel slave owners who denied freedom to those they held in bondage to work their plantations. While there were those who worked as slaves in the South, there were also those held in bondage in the North as well. Hell, Union General Ulysses S. Grant owned slaves. Not only that, but out of all those who fought on the side of the Confederacy, only a small percentage of them owned slaves. Why would so many pick up arms just so the rich plantation owners could keep their slaves? Or, could there have been some other reason they chose to fight in a war against the North?
Before I continue you have got to understand that the Civil War, or whatever else you want to call it, was not fought over either the issues of slavery or tariffs. It was fought because Abraham Lincoln felt it was within his authority to deny a portion of the country to secede from a voluntary union of states. The Civil War could just as easily have been fought if any of the Northern States decided to secede, rather than the 11 Southern States which actually did secede. The war itself was fought over the issue of secession. Had Lincoln allowed the Southern States to secede in peace there would have been no WAR.

So, it is the matter of what led the Southern States to secede that we must address if we want to come to the truth. I will be the first to admit that slavery did play a part in the South seceding from the Union. The abolitionists of the North had been pressuring for the emancipation of the slaves and that would have devastated the Southern economy. But you have to realize, that as abhorrent as slavery was/is, it was still perfectly legal under our Constitution. Our Founders had skirted the issue of banning slavery altogether and therefore owning slaves, although it is a crime against humanity, was perfectly legal, and the government had no right to interfere with it.

Let us not also forget that a great many Northern families became very wealthy off the slave trade; whereby their ships would sail to Africa to capture or purchase those who were then returned to America and sold into slavery. So the North is not without blame as far as the evil of slavery goes. In fact, when our Declaration of Independence was written there were more people held in slavery in New York than there were in Georgia.

Not to mention the fact that a great many emancipated slaves went on to own slaves of their own; with some of them having upwards of 100 slaves. So the evils of slavery cannot be laid solely at the feet of the South.

Therefore, if slavery was not the sole, or even the primary cause which led the South to secede, what was it? If one wants to know the truth they would do well to do some research into the Nullification Crisis to get an idea of what led the South to make the decision to secede from the Union. We all know, or at least I hope we do, about the American Revolution and the phrase, ‘taxation without representation.’ Could a suffocating tax have been the reason which led the South to sever its ties to the Union and form their own independent nation?

In a letter dated June 23, 1861, banking mogul Salomon Rothschild wrote, “The true reason which impelled the Southern states to secede is the question of tariffs. The South is simply a producer and consumer; the West and the North, and especially the East are most entirely manufacturers, but they need strong protection. The South could supply itself with all necessary items in Europe, at prices from twenty-five to forty percent lower than they have been paying up to now. It [the South] contends that these duties do it no good and that the money goes back into the pockets of the Northern manufacturers. Therefore it wants to escape from this tax.” Could this have been the true reason the Southern States left the Union; the reason your history books fail to inform you of?

We’ve all heard horror stories of how aggressive the IRS can be when it comes to collecting back taxes that the government says are due. Imagine then how aggressive government would become if the States which provided the lion’s share of the revenue it needed to fund its operation were to up and leave the Union.

In his June 23rd letter, Rothschild continues by saying, “The suppression of , or even a strong reduction in, these duties would completely ruin the eastern states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which could not compete with the cheap prices attained by England and even France. Thousands of men would find themselves unemployed and would therefore threaten the well-being and even the very existence of not only of their employers, but even of the merchants and producers in those areas, leading to an imminent danger of social revolution, which the North must avoid at all costs.”

If that isn’t sufficient to convince you that Lincoln took the nation to war to keep his precious tariffs in place, how about a couple examples from Northern newspapers at the time? From the New York Evening Post, dated March 12, 1861 we read, “… either the (federal) revenue from duties (protective tariff) must be collected in the ports of the rebel states or the ports be closed to importations from abroad… 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… Allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten percent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railways would be supplied from the southern ports. What, then is left for our government?”

Then in the New York Times, dated March 30, 1861, we read, “The predicament in which both the Government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over….If the manufacturer at Manchester [England] can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage…If the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the lost of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers…”

Lincoln took our nation to war, at a cost of well over half a million lives, and untold devastation to the Southern infrastructure, just to keep his revenue stream flowing into the government’s coffers, and to keep the manufacturing interests which formed the base of the Republican Party happy.

If the war were truly being fought to free the slaves, why did Lincoln wait 2 years after it started before he issued his Emancipation Proclamation? Could it be that the Northern Army was getting its ass handed to it by the Confederate Army, and that Lincoln was hoping that by Emancipating the slaves in the Confederate held territory that he would instigate a slave uprising; causing many in the Confederate Army to flee the battlefields to protect their homes and property?

Even so, the Emancipation Proclamation is not what it is made out to be in the history books. It did not free a single person held in bondage in States loyal to the Union, nor those held in bondage in Union controlled areas of the South. Lincoln’s great Emancipation Proclamation clearly states “That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free…” It says nothing about slaves held in bondage in a single Northern, or border State.

Oh, but Lincoln freed the slaves is the mantra we are taught, and anyone who takes the side of the Confederacy is a racist, prejudiced pig. The slaves were not completely set free until the ratification of the 13th Amendment; which happened 7 MONTHS AFTER the Civil War had ended.

Another fact you may not have been taught is that Lincoln supported a measure which would have made slavery a permanent institution in the United States. A Constitutional Amendment had been passed by both Houses of Congress and was on its way to the States for ratification when the Civil War erupted into hostilities. This Corwin Amendment stated, “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” In his first inaugural address Lincoln spoke of this amendment, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

If that isn’t enough, Lincoln himself wrote to his friend Horace Greeley, “The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

The issue of slavery was a tool used by Lincoln to help him in defeating what he viewed as a threat, not only to the existence of his government, but to the Northern industrialists which formed the base of his Republican Party. He could not let the South go in peace and would say and do anything to defeat the Confederacy and bring them back under control of the federal authority.

That is why the Civil War was fought; not over slavery. In Part II of this series I will go in to the crimes Lincoln committed during the course of his war of aggression against, not only the South itself, but the Constitution and the protection it provides the people and their rights.
…to be continued

In or around 100 A.D. the Roman poet Juvenal coined the phrase Bread and Circuses in reference to his contempt for the Roman people in neglecting their civic duties. “Bread and circuses” (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace, as an offered palliative. (Wikipedia)

I don’t know how many, especially among the youth of America today, are familiar with the name Robert Heinlein, but he was a science fiction writer who came to prominence in the late 1940’s. Along with Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov, Heinlein formed a trio of science fiction writers who found their work gaining acceptance in the mainstream media publications such as the Saturday Evening Post. Many of these writers used their writings as a means of addressing social issues through fiction.

While there are still many in the fiction genre of writers who address social issues, it was during this period in American literature that many a ‘classic’ novel were written which remain as reminders to us of the dangers caused by governments with too much power and authority. Huxley’s Brave New World, Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty Four, and later Rand’s Atlas Shrugged are all compelling novels if one can but open their eyes and see the way in which they parallel reality.

Why did I suddenly shift gears and switch from the Roman poet Juvenal to 20th Century fiction writers? Good question. Well it is because Heinlein himself once spoke of the dangers of Bread and Circuses, “The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’

‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.”

Bread and Circuses refers to the practice in ancient Rome where the government would give out free wheat to the people and then provide them with games such as gladiatorial matches to keep their bellies full and their minds distracted from more pressing matters. America today is no different; not really. Today our government gives out benefits and subsidies to the people while the people are provided with all manner of entertainment; movies; concerts, Sitcoms, Reality TV, Sporting Events, and Social Media, just to name a few.

The key to Bread and Circuses is to keep the people in a state of ignorance and contentment by providing them with sustenance and entertainment so they won’t think about all the bad things their government is doing. The election of our President has become a media circus unto itself; full of pomp and circumstance with analysts, political pundits, along with music and entertainers. The election of our President is more about show now than it is substance and the people fall for it. Sure, we have a two party system with two parties superficially appearing to be different, but in regards to the fact that government continues to grow and expand its power over our lives they are both the same.

Yet people can’t see past the ceremony to the fact that not a damned thing our government does today is authorized by the very document which created it all those years ago; and many of the things it does violates the rights government was instituted to protect.

I know I’ve mentioned it before, but our Founders did not establish a democracy; in fact, they feared and despised democracies. Even Alexander Hamilton who sought a much stronger government than did the likes of Jefferson and Madison, warned of the dangers of democracies, “We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship.” In the last letter Hamilton wrote before being shot and killed by Aaron Burr in a duel, Hamilton stated, “…our real disease is DEMOCRACY.”

Today the words democracy and republic may be used interchangeably, much like the words national and federal in reference to our government; but back in the time when our country was still young and our government in its infancy, these words meant distinctly different things.

In Webster’s 1828 Standard Dictionary, the definition for a Republic is as follows: A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person…

Do you go to Washington D.C. and debate, then cast your vote as to which pieces of legislation shall become law? If you did, that would be a democracy. Instead, we elect people to do that process for us. Yet why do we have government? It’s a simple question and shouldn’t take too long to answer; why do we even have a government? It is because the people who lived in 1787-1789 drafted a Constitution and then sent it to the States, and by proxy, the people for their ratification. It was through the sovereign authority of the people that our Constitution was given any validity, and our government came into existence.

The Constitution is not simply a piece of paper which says, “Here you go people, we’re giving you a government which shall be free to determine what laws it may pass which it feels are in your best interests.” No, the Constitution is the law which regulates what laws our government may enact on our behalf.

John Adams once said, “…We are a nation of laws, not men…” What he meant by that was that as men we are not free to pass whatever laws we feel are necessary for the good of all, nor are our lawmakers allowed to do the same. Instead we have laws which tell us what specific areas our government may legislate upon; and anything beyond those specifically enumerated powers is usurpation; which inevitably leads to tyranny.

When the children of any nation are denied a proper education as it pertains to the principles upon which their system of government rests, it then becomes easy for government to slowly amass far more power than it was ever intended it be allowed to exercise.

Laws, by their very nature, restrict the freedom of those to whom they apply. The more laws we have, the less freedom we have. It is almost like an old see-saw in which if one side goes up the other must go down. The sad thing is these laws, more often than not, create problems, and the people then look to the very people who created the problem to solve it by passing more laws; which only makes things worse. It then becomes a vicious never ending cycle which ultimately leads to the total loss of freedom for those who are governed over.

What we have today is Bread and Circuses in which as long as the people continue to believe that they are participating in the democratic process of electing those who fill the seats of power within government that our government is still functioning as it was designed. They may not agree with whatever our government does, but as long as they have the belief that they can vote those in government out of office, they believe government is running according to plan; when the fact is the majority of the people have never even read the plan.

People today place their political party over their willingness to stand up for the principles upon which this once great nation was founded. Sure, America is by far a much better country than many others, but it could be so much greater if we would only adhere to the principles of freedom espoused by our Founders all those years ago.

But most people today do not want freedom; at least not real freedom. Instead they want comfort and security, or Bread and Circuses. People today have been conditioned to not question authority and to not think for themselves. They would rather be part of a winning team in politics than to stand alone for the principles this country was founded upon. John Quincy Adams, our 5th President, once said, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” It’s too bad so few people today adhere to that simple advice.

It has been my experience that a great many people in this country either refuse to think, or are incapable of doing so. It’s as Henry Ford once said, “Two percent of the people think; three percent think they think; and 95 percent would rather die than think.” I could provide mountains of evidence; quotes and historical documents to support the things I write about, but what good does it do if the people won’t think about what I say; and more importantly, apply that information in their decision making process?

But you know, whenever you go to see the circus, you may be watching the entertainment, but someone behind the scenes is collecting the cash and making a profit. So it is with our government; while you are entertained with the pomp and circumstance of electing a new President, and while you are kept entertained in the ‘off season’ by the mindless drivel on TV or whatever other form of entertainment you seek, someone is behind the scenes in our government getting rich.

It doesn’t matter if it is the military industrial complex that is getting rich off the endless wars our government embroils us in; the pharmaceutical companies who are getting rich off diseases that could be cured naturally, and fake psychiatric illnesses they continue to make up to peddle their poisons to us; or the bankers who profit from the interest of our national debt; PEOPLE ARE GETTING RICH WHILE WE SUFFER!

All this because the majority ignore what lies just behind the curtain; because to peek through that curtain and see the truth would shatter the illusion, and with it your trust and faith in our government; leaving you with nothing to believe in anymore.

They say the truth will set you free. But if you refuse to accept the truth then I guess that means you choose the alternative to freedom; servitude. So the only thing left to say is simply, until you decide to wake up and smell the roses, enjoy your Bread and Circuses while they last.