This is probably the longest article I have ever written, as well as being the most researched and therefore challenging article to read. It is filled with things that many of you may not know, therefore cause you to question both myself and the validity of the things presented for your consideration. I only ask that you read it, as slowly as you need, to digest the facts and come to your own conclusions.
It is said that Lao Tzu wrote, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” Why do I begin a political commentary with the words of a 6th century BC Chinese philosopher? It is because whatever type journey you decide to undertake it all begins with a single step. This applies as much to journeys of the mind as it does to physical journeys. When one starts out on the pathway to knowledge or truth they have to be willing to, not only take that first step, but be willing to go where the path, or in this case, the facts take them. Sometimes the facts may lead one to face the uncomfortable fact that everything they had previously believed in has been a lie, or at least a comfortable myth.
I think anyone with half a brain can see that there is something wrong, terribly wrong, with America today. There is another old quote, and I have no idea who said it, but it states, “The key to solving any problem lies in first recognizing that there is a problem.” As I said, I believe that deep down, people realize that there is something wrong in America, so they recognize that there is a problem. But to continue along this train of thought for a moment, there is another quote by famed theoretical physicist Albert Einstein which fits together nicely with the previous quote. Einstein is stated as saying, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
Each of us have the choice of accepting the things we are told as being the absolute truth, or we can attempt to find the truth on our own. Roughly 20 years ago I decided I was not going to accept what I’d been told as the truth and begin a journey of my own to see if I could find out the real truth for myself. I’ve always been somewhat of a rebel so rejecting what people tell me has never been difficult for me. Even so there have been times that the things I have learned has caused me to question much of what I call my core beliefs. Nonetheless it would be intellectually dishonest of me to deny the facts, instead choosing to believe the lies I have been told most of my life.
This is my attempt to chronicle where I am currently at in this journey of mine. It may sound far-fetched, and even unpatriotic to some, but as I said, this is where the facts, and my own thinking has led me. If you are of an open mind maybe you too will see that things aren’t as they seem in America and you may begin your own journey to find the truth. Or then again you may, as Morpheus tells Neo, “…take the blue pill, the story ends…you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.” But be forewarned, if you choose to begin this journey, the things you learn you cannot unlearn. Therefore what you learn will forever change the way you see things in this country.
It is with a certain degree of aloofness that I have been watching the seventeen Republican candidates scurry around like rats, competing for your vote in the upcoming primaries. Much of the rhetoric I hear from them is the same old tired message I’ve heard from Republican candidates going back as far as I can remember. In the end though, as they say in the Highlander films, there can be only one. So what will eventually happen is that the GOP faithful will fall in behind whomever their convention nominates, and then the Democrats will do the same leaving the undecided voters the choice of either voting independent, or sitting it out because they have become disgusted with the entire process. Because truth be told, at least from my perspective, there isn’t a whole lot of between the Republicans and the Democrats.
My journey to better understand our system of government began twenty-five years ago, although it wasn’t until 9/11 that I began to entertain any type conspiracy theories. Up until that point in my life I was just another Republican who thought the Democrats were the spawn of Satan, hell bent on destroying what America stood for. Once I found the courage to question my own beliefs it was as if a floodgate had opened up and I was able to see things from an entirely different perspective. Instead of looking at the things I read from a conservative point of view I was able to begin examining the things I was reading from a purely neutral viewpoint. This allowed me to see things with unbiased eyes, with the truth as my ultimate goal.
That is why I began this commentary with that one quote from Lao Tzu, to begin a journey such as this one must take that first step, and in my case that first step was being willing to look at everything from an entirely new perspective. Unfortunately most people cannot take that first step, they are blinded by their own biases and belief that everything is as they have been told throughout their lives. Either that or they fear that by abandoning their beliefs they may find they have lost that sense of belonging that so many so desperately need. The pathway to truth is often a lonely one, but I have found that the friendships you do make along the way are richer and far more rewarding than the shallow friendships of belonging found in groups.
If all you ever do is listen to the rhetoric from both parties and what you hear about them from the news media I can see how you might believe there is an ocean of difference between what the Democrats stand for and what the Republicans stand for. However, were you to put your party loyalty aside for just a moment and ask yourself a single question you might begin to realize that in truth there are more similarities than differences. The question one should ask themselves is, “Do the policies my party stands for lead to an increase or decrease in the size of government, broaden or limit the scope of its powers, and does what my party do safeguard or restrict my liberty?”
If you are honest with yourself you will see that both parties are guilty of expanding the size of government, increasing the power it wields over your lives, and limiting your rights. If the two parties are so radically different why is it that you rarely see one party repealing legislation passed by the other party once they obtain a majority in Congress and control of the Oval Office? That is because they don’t really care about reducing the size of government. All they care about is increasing the size of government in areas that are of importance to them. As Ronald Reagan once said, “The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.”
In the early years of our new nation there were no political parties, at least not as we know them today. In fact many of our Founders hated the idea of political parties, or factions as they often called them. In a 1780 letter to Jonathan Jackson, John Adams wrote, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
Nine years later in a letter to Francis Hopkinson, Thomas Jefferson would write, “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”
The earliest political parties that arose under our new Constitution, if you wish to call them that, were the federalists and the anti-federalists. One believed in a strong central government with less power held by the states, while the other were said to hold the exact opposite belief; a weak central government with more power retained by the states and the people. Yet it is ironic that the name federalist is even used to describe the two, but I’ll get back to that in bit, first you’ll need some background material.
From my experience most people couldn’t tell you what powers the Constitution grants government, what their rights are, and, if they are lucky a few assorted dates or events concerning the history of their country. This is not only sad, it is dangerous to liberty. Our Founders sacrificed so much to give us a future where we could live as free men and women, and if a people forget their countries past it is a relatively easy task for those seeking power and dominion to strip them of that freedom.
To understand any of the writings from our nation’s history you first care enough to read it for yourself instead of taking someone’s word that what they are telling you is the truth. However, reading it is not enough, you must also understand the context to discern why it was written. You must also understand the meaning of the words found in these documents if you are to fully grasp what they say. The complete understanding of words like sovereignty, democracy, republic, nationalist, federalist is essential if you are to understand what these documents and speeches say. Too many people simply breeze through the founding documents without ever giving much thought to what they actually say. Believe me, I have been just as guilty of this as everyone else, but I have realized the error of my ways and have gone back and painstakingly given a great deal of thought to them, often sentence by sentence.
For instance, I constantly hear people talk about our democracy. What democracy? To a one, our Founders despised democracies. James Madison said, “Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
Thomas Jefferson said, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
John Adams said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Our Founders did not want a democracy. What they wanted, and what we ended up with will become the focus of the remainder of this commentary.
Blacks Dictionary of Law defines a democracy as: “That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens; as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. According to the theory of a pure democracy, every citizen should participate directly in the business of governing, and the legislative assembly should comprise the whole people. But the ultimate lodgment of the sovereignty being the distinguishing feature, the introduction of the representative system does not remove a government from this type. However, a government of the latter kind is sometimes specifically described as a representative democracy.”
Yet even representative democracy is not wholly accurate when it comes to describing our system of government. In a representative democracy the people vote for ‘representatives’ to pass laws in their behalf. But there is one crucial difference between a representative democracy and what we have; in a representative democracy the representatives may pass whatever laws a majority of the people support, there are no limits upon the laws they may pass as long as they have the support of a majority of the people. For instance, if a majority of the people decide that everyone must attend church on Sunday the legislature could conceivably pass a law requiring everyone to go to church every Sunday.
Our system differs in that the true sovereigns of this country, via a written Constitution, have set limits upon what government can and cannot do. Not only that, they have placed certain rights beyond the reach of legislators in a Bill of Rights.
Before I go any further it is imperative that people understand the meaning of the word sovereignty. According to Black’s Dictionary of Law sovereignty is defined as: “The possession of sovereign power; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived.” Do you see now why it is crucial you understand what sovereign, or sovereignty means? Sovereignty is the source from which all political power flows.
In talking to people I get the distinct impression that they believe the government is sovereign over us and that therefore whatever laws they pass must be obeyed. They could not be further from the truth. Think about the age old question, “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” Now replace a few words and you get, “Which came first, government or the people?” In 1850 Frederic Bastiat answered that by stating the obvious, “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”
In Chapter 11 of John Locke’s Second Treatise he discusses the power given to any legislative body wherein he states, “First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave up to the community: for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself; and no body has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another.”
More than 150 years later the Frenchman Bastiat would answer the question what is law by saying, “If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”
Government, in whatever form it takes, is a creation of the people. Either governments are created by common consent of the people or power is assumed by people to rule over others. But make no mistake about it, government is a human creation and therefore can only have as much power and authority as we allow it to have.
Just as very few know what the Constitution says, I’m certain that fewer still know that prior to its ratification we already had an existing system of government. Eight days after the Continental Congress voted to approve the Declaration of Independence the results of another committee was submitted to the Congress for its consideration. After a year of debate and editing, the final document was finally submitted to Congress for its approval. This document is known as the Articles of Confederation.
A bit of trivia for those who may be interested. I’ll bet many of you aren’t aware that under these Articles of Confederation numerous men served as President of the Continental Congress. Although their powers were severely limited in comparison to the powers of a president today, they were, nonetheless, presidents of these states united. These men were, in order of their serving; Peyton Randolph, Henry Middleton, Peyton Randolph again, John Hancock, Charles Thompson, Henry Laurens, John Jay, and Samuel Huntington. So the next time somebody asks you who was America’s first president you can turn the tables on them by asking “before or after the Constitution?” It would be interesting to see how they react.
It was under these Articles of Confederation that we won our independence, although some may claim that the ability of the Congress to force the states into paying the revenue required to run the revolution was a serious defect that required rectifying. Regardless, we did have a system of government prior to the Constitution being written, and therefore it deserves a bit of attention as to some of the things these Articles of Confederation said.
Before I get in to what the Articles of Confederation say, I must ask, do you know what a Confederation is? According to Black’s Dictionary of Law a confederation is a league or compact for mutual support, particularly of princes, nations, or states. As the state governments themselves were representative of the people who inhabited the states, they could not grant a created body any more power than they themselves had. This was a principle the people held to be true which was taken from Locke’s Treatise on Civil Governments, “…for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself…”
This confederation was to be called the United States of America. Prior to the Articles of Confederation these states had never been given that name, it is the first time it appears as such. Now you might be saying, “but doesn’t the Declaration of Independence call us the United States?” Yes and no. In the Declaration of Independence the signers declare themselves to be representatives of the united States of America. Same thing you say? No, it isn’t.
When the word united is written with a lower case u it signifies a verb, meaning that these states were united in the cause which the document declares. However when preceding the word states and with a capital u it is used as a pronoun, therefore the entire name United States of America is the name which was given to the confederation created by the Articles of Confederation. Trivial? Possibly, but our Founders were very astute and chose their wording carefully. It would be arrogant of us to think that they were not aware of the significance of a lower case u in the Declaration of Independence and a capital u in the Articles of Confederation.
Continuing on now, Section 2 of the Articles of Confederation stated, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” This, as well as Section 8 would prove to be sticking points later on for men whose designs were for a much stronger central government, but I’ll get to that later.
Section 3 defines the purpose for which the confederation was created, “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”
Finally, Section 8 states, “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”
Whether or not the Articles of Confederation provided sufficient powers to our government to function throughout the life of our country we will never know as from the beginning there were men who felt it was far too weak to handle the needs of our young country. Among those who felt the need for a much stronger central government were James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Although each had uniquely differing opinions on how much power to grant a central government, they both believed the Articles of Confederation were insufficient and began work to rectify what they felt to be serious deficiencies.
On April 16, 1787 James Madison wrote a letter to George Washington outlining his general ideas for strengthening the federal government. Keep in mind that this was written at least a month prior to the delegates arriving at Philadelphia for what would become known as the Constitutional Convention. Madison’s letter said a great deal of things regarding his vision for a stronger central government, but I wish to touch upon only a few of them and will do so individually so I may insert my thoughts and comments upon each suggestion made by Madison.
The first thing which Madison said, and which I would like to address, is the following statement, “Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcileable with their aggregate sovereignty; and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for some middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.”
Although Madison admits that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would probably be unattainable, his last sentence gives us a clue as to how he may have felt regarding the power that ought to be retained by the states under his plan. Madison said that the states should not be excluded “… wherever they can be subordinately useful ” Merely useful? Under the Articles of Confederation each state had one vote in Congress, therefore the states were co-equals in the operation of the government with no state having more say than any other.
In Federalist 39 Madison would declare that “The Senate on the other hand will derive its powers from the States, as political and co-equal societies…” He does not say that they will be co-equal in relationship to the powers held by the central government, only that they would be equal between themselves.
This may sound like a meaningless and trivial complaint at first glance, but then in his letter to Washington Madison makes the following suggestion, “Over and above this positive power, a negative in all cases whatsoever on the legislative acts of the States, as heretofore exercised by the Kingly prerogative, appears to me to be absolutely necessary, and to be the least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions.”
So Madison believed that this centralized government should be able to VETO all laws passed by the individual states. He compares it to a Kingly prerogative, and calls it the “… least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions.” The least possible encroachment? I shudder to think of what he considered a major encroachment upon state sovereignty.
Then there is this single sentence that shows just how strong Madison wanted his desired government to be, “In like manner the right of coercion should be expressly declared.” Coercion? Just to make sure you understand what power Madison wanted this central government to have, coercion means the right to use force or threats to make someone do something against their will. So basically what Madison wanted was to be able to bring in the army to force the states to comply with the edicts of the central government. Yet isn’t that one of the things they had fought a revolution over, having troops upon American soil enforcing the tyrannical will of the King? But that is apparently what power Madison wanted this government to have.
And finally, to show that Madison was less concerned with the sovereignty of the states he makes the following statement, “To give a new System its proper validity and energy, a ratification must be obtained from the people, and not merely from the ordinary authority of the Legislatures. This will be the more essential as inroads on the existing Constitutions of the States will be unavoidable.”
You have to realize that at this moment in our nation’s history the central government was endowed with but few powers. Basically it was weak, very weak, as to what it could do. Under the Articles of Confederation a single no vote by a state could halt the passage of any law proposed by the Congress. All the power was held by the states and the central government needed a unanimous vote by all states to get anything done at all. Whether this unequal balance of power would have sustained our country through the years we will never know, because the Constitution was ratified, and therefore the balance of powers shifted as well. Unfortunately, as time has shown, this shift in the balance of powers has been detrimental to the states as sovereign entities.
Years later Thomas Jefferson would write, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center 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.”
Yet there is one question that I doubt many of you have ever asked yourselves, I know I had not, at least not until very recently. The reason I doubt many have asked this question is because I see the assumption of powers by our government go on with little to no complaint by the people. They do not understand that the Constitution is a law and that it is binding upon both us and those whom we elect. So any violations of it should be treated as criminal acts, yet people just shrug their shoulders and keep voting for these same criminals over and over again.
The question I would like you to ask yourselves is this, “Was the ratification of our Constitution a criminal act?” Yes I know, coming from me, someone who has for years written in support of the Constitution to now ask whether it was enacted criminally is a huge shift in direction. But that is what happens when one goes on a journey for the truth, you often find out that previously held opinions were in fact false opinions. A person can then either accept that and move on with a new viewpoint, or be intellectually dishonest and ignore the facts that have proven your prior views to be incorrect.
So I’m asking you to ask yourself, could our Constitution have been enacted under less that legal means?
To assist you in answering allow me to provide some facts for your consideration. At the time we already had a government, however weak and ineffectual some claimed it was. We had a constitution, of sorts; The Articles of Confederation, which were legally ratified by the sovereign states, granting certain powers to this central government, with the remaining powers held by the States.
In Section 8 of these Articles of Confederation it states, “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”
When the delegates met in Philadelphia they did so because the State legislatures had sent them to “amend the Articles of Confederation.” Yet upon the first day of deliberations Madison presented what is known as the Virginia Plan, outlining his ideas for a stronger centralized government, basically the same things he had suggested to George Washington a month earlier. In short, they were told they were not there to amend anything, but to start from the beginning with an entirely new constitution.
As delegates of the States they were sent there to do one thing, and one thing only. So by their agreeing to continue, knowing that they were overstepping the authority granted them by their home states, did they betray the trust granted them by their state legislatures and proceed illegally? It might help answer your question to know that each delegate was sworn to secrecy, drapes were hung over the windows of the hall, and a guard was posted outside to shoo away anyone who may have tried to eavesdrop on the proceedings.
It may also help to convince you that many of the staunchest supporters of individual liberty were not in attendance during this convention. Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were abroad. Samuel Adams, the firebrand writer and member of the Sons of Liberty was not invited. Neither was Patrick Henry whose cry “Give me liberty or give me death” helped spark the revolutionary spirit amongst the colonists. In fact Patrick Henry refused to attend, saying he smelled a rat in Philadelphia. On top of all this, Rhode Island refused to send a single delegate to the convention, so their state was not represented at all in the proceedings.
Regardless of who attended, and who did not, the convention proceeded throughout the summer months of 1787 and eventually came to an agreement which produced what we now know as our Constitution. The next problem they faced was getting it put into action.
You have to remember, that the existing legal document which governed our young nation was the Articles of Confederation, which clearly stated, “…nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”
So now we have a document which may have been written illegally, now being submitted to the people for their consideration. Under the Articles of Confederation that would mean that each State would have to agree to it for it to go into effect. But that is not how it happened.
This new proposed Constitution was submitted to the States for discussion. Many arguments arose between those who supported the ratification of this new Constitution, and those who opposed it. If you recall, earlier I had stated that it was ironic that those who supported the Constitution called themselves federalist. Now I’ll explain why I said that.
This was one of the many sticking points the so-called federalists had to overcome, the creation of a centralized national government instead of a true federalist government. You see, there is a difference. Until recently I myself thought federal and national could be interchanged when speaking of our government in Washington D.C., but I was wrong, they hold entirely different meanings.
Going back to Federalist 39, Madison describes a federal form of government as being a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states, while a national government is a CONSOLIDATION of the states into one body politic.
This question was raised by no other than Patrick Henry, who refused to attend the convention because he smelled a rat. In the Virginia assembly discussing the ratification of the Constitution Mr. Henry made the following statement, “Mr. Chairman … 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.”
You see, the people, up until that point in time, had elected representatives to their State legislatures to govern on their behalf. Up until that point in time the States held more authority than did the government created by the Articles of Confederation. Any changes to this balance of power would therefore have to be agreed upon by the representatives of the people, not the people in general. The people did not draft the Constitution, their representatives did, but it was under the impression of the legislators who sent them there that they were only to AMEND the Articles of Confederation, not write an entirely new Constitution.
Under a confederation, or a federal system of government, any laws enacted by the governing body apply only to the states. However, in a national government, the laws enacted by the governing body apply to the people in general, basically bypassing the authority of the State legislatures. That is why there is such a big difference between the two, and why Patrick Henry posed that legitimate question to the Virginia assembly.
One other thing. When the members of the convention convened their meetings and the final product of their deliberations was presented to the States, it was just a piece of paper with words written upon it. It held no legal authority, until, as the Articles of Confederation declared, “…such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”
Why is it then that the ratification process was undertaken by the means written in the Constitution; a positive vote by 3/4′s of the states, instead of the unanimous vote of the states as required by the legal document governing our nation? How could they legally apply statements within a document that held no legal authority at the time, to supersede the required method of changing governmental powers?
As painful as this is for me to say, I believe our Constitution was enacted by illegal means and subterfuge. Yes, eventually all the states would ratify it, but nonetheless the means by which it was written, and then ratified, are shady at best, certainly questionable, and possibly illegal.
These are the facts that have led me to where I now find myself in this journey for truth and knowledge. Nonetheless, it is what we have lived under for 226 years now. Now I find myself asking the question as to whether those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention wrote it in such a way as to leave openings for future abuses and usurpations of power by future generations, or whether the vagueness of certain passages is only the result of so many disagreeing ideas coming to a compromise to produce the best document they could under the circumstances.
This is why I am so aloof at time when it comes to these elections. Not only do I see that the candidates, and the people of this country pay so little regards to what powers the Constitution grants our federal/national (?) government, but they don’t even care enough about history to even try to learn the things I have learned so far.
Centuries ago Patrick Henry said the following, “When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object.” As time has passed the idea of liberty, individual sovereignty, and even independence, has faded away until it is but a distant ember in the back of people’s minds.
When this Constitution was ratified by the several States there were those who dissented to its ratification. They may have been a minority, too small a voice to halt the dangers they saw from its adoption, yet their words bear notice as they often were harbingers of what was to come.
For instance, after the vote was taken in the Pennsylvania assembly, and the Constitution was ratified by its members, the minority delegates wrote their own dissenting opinion, much like dissenting Justices in a Supreme Court case do. In this minority statement they declare, “WE DISSENT, First, Because it is the opinion of the most celebrated writers on government, and confirmed by uniform experience, that very extensive territory cannot be governed on the principles of freedom, otherwise than by a confederation of republics, possessing all the powers of internal government; but united in the management of their general, and foreign concerns…
We dissent, secondly, because the powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron handed despotism, as nothing short of the supremacy of despotic sway could connect and govern these United States under one government.”
Could they have been any more accurate in describing the government that exists today? I think not. With all the government agencies that exist today to enforce the will of the federal government we have that coercion that Madison so desperately wanted. With it comes the inevitable loss of liberty that goes hand in hand with an increasingly despotic government.
A few last thoughts and then I will end this lengthy rant. In the 19th century there was a man named Lysander Spooner who had fought a personal battle against the federal government. He had owned a private mail delivery company and was put out of business by pressure put upon him by the United States government and the monopoly on mail delivery held by the U.S. Postal system. Spooner may have been bitter and cynical due to his dealings with the federal government, but he once said something that bears consideration in conclusion of my own commentary. Spooner once said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or it has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”
These are the results of my own personal journey and quest for knowledge. But as I said, each journey begins with a single step. One must have courage to take that first step, or one can remain ignorant, believing in all the lies you accept as absolute truths.
Two quotes and I’ll let you try to digest the things I have said. First a quote from Carl Sagan, “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding the truth. That bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.”
Then the final quote from Dresden James, “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”
I have had to deal with that for years now, and I’m certain that the things I have just said will cause even more to question my sanity. Yet I stand by my conclusions as they are supported by the facts I have discovered in this journey of mine.
I would hope that each of you reading this have the intellectual honesty to at least listen to what I have said with an open mind. If not, I’ve just wasted an entire week putting this together for your consideration. But make no mistake about it, things are not as they seem in America. It is up to you to decide whether to seek out the truth, or continue believing the lies you are being told.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled propaganda…