Neal's Soapbox

Pissing in the wind is a slang term used to describe someone who is wasting their time, or effort, on a cause that is futile. That’s how I feel sometimes…no…pretty much all the time. I see what is happening in the country I love and I wonder why there are but a few others who see it too.

If you watch any of the network news agencies I’m sure you have, at one time or another, seen the news anchor report on poll numbers which state the percentage of people who think that our country is heading in the right direction. Unfortunately what most people consider as being the right direction is directly tied to their party affiliation and has absolutely nothing to do with our countries adherence to the principles it was founded upon.

While I do not support the Tea Party 100%, the basic premise upon which it was founded, a return to the limited government as envisioned by our founders, is a concept I wholeheartedly adhere to. Yet why is it that members of the Tea Party, and people such as myself are considered radicals, and dangerous to our nation’s security when all we want is for our government to do the job it was created to do, and nothing more?

For the past fifteen some odd years I have been trying to find a way to explain the basic concepts our country was founded upon. Aside from a few regular readers I have seen my efforts fall upon deaf ears and minds not open to the truth. Why is it that so many people either cannot face, or have no desire to seek out the truth?

The great American inventor Thomas Edison once said, “Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.” I’m beginning to believe that he was right, because if people were actually thinking they would be just as mad at what is going on in America as I am.

Those who read my articles regularly are, for the most part, of a like mind and we see the impending collapse of our Republic. Those to whom I write these articles for, the overwhelming majority of Americans who still hold on to the two party paradigm and that our government still adheres to the powers granted it by the Constitution, ignore my articles completely, or read them as if they were pieces written to entertain.
Yet I see myself as a patriot crier, one who warns of impending danger. Only I feel as if I am crying out to a nation filled with deaf people. In the Bible, after one of His many parables, Jesus said to the people, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Mark 4:9 It seems no one has ears to hear the things I have to say.

Our Founders fought a war so that they could be free from tyranny. They established a system of government which was designed to give the government just enough power to manage the affairs of the country, while preserving the rights and liberty of the people who inhabited it. It would be ludicrous to assume that they would fight a war to gain their freedom from a tyrant, only to create a system of government that was equally as tyrannical as the one they had just fought to free themselves of. To quote from the movie the Patriot, Mel Gibson’s character asks, “Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard…why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?”

In 1785, nearly a quarter century before he was elected president, James Madison wrote, “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.”

From the Liberty Letters, 1771, Samuel Adams declared, “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”

We see that our Founders believed that it was the duty of all good citizens to be wary of intrusions upon their liberty; that they not allow precedents to be set which could be used to further violate the rights of the people. Yet here we sit today, begging our government to enact more laws which do just that.

We do so in the name of public safety, we do so in the name of national security, but the end result is the same, a loss of our liberty and unalienable rights. From Great Speeches and Orations of Daniel Webster, pg 393, I quote, “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison warned, “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.”

Yet in today’s society one that decries the actions of their government is called a radical, a domestic terrorist and unpatriotic. How is it that the love of one’s country, and more importantly, the love of the principles it was founded upon considered unpatriotic?

Roughly a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt said that “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.” Yet to so many people today patriotism is defined as standing behind their government, no matter what it does. That, to me, is not patriotism, it is foolhardy and dangerous.

Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense and The Rights of Man, is quoted as saying, “The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” Yet how can anyone expect to protect their country from their government when they have absolutely no idea as to the reason for which their government was established? In an 1816 letter to Charles Yancey, Thomas Jefferson declared, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

Well, all I can say is that I have tried to inform people, tried to wake them up in regards as to how badly their government is eroding their rights, and usurping powers that it was never intended it possess. But people refuse to use their brains for the purpose they were intended; instead their thoughts and actions are guided by their emotions…through their hearts. They live in this utopian dream land where everyone deserves something, always at the cost of someone else’s efforts.

There will come a time, I can’t say when exactly, but it is coming, when things will simply fall apart. Our government cannot continue to borrow money like there is no tomorrow. There will come a day when your government has passed so many laws which violates your rights that you will wake up and find that you have none left to be violated. And when that happens, don’t come crying to me that someone should have warned you, because you were too damn busy doing whatever it is you are doing now to listen to the voices that have been warning you.

Hopefully the historians will get it right when, in the future, they write of the downfall of America, and they say that the people were too ignorant, too complacent, to eager to sacrifice all that their country was founded upon just so that they could feel safe in their homes while they guzzled down beer and watched and endless stream of garbage on their televisions.

But until that time, until they come after me, or until I draw my last breath, I will continue to piss into the wind, hoping that some of it will land on you and wake you up before it is too late.

Seeing as how I live in California, a state whose legislators have, for the most part, taken a strict anti-gun rights stance, I have always kept my radar focused on anything regarding the infringement of our Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Therefore it should come as no surprise to anyone that the events currently unfolding in the state of Connecticut have been of great interest to me.

Unfortunately, the network news, being the lackeys they are, have yet to do any reporting on what is going on in Connecticut. By virtue of their silence on the matter, the vast majority of Americans who rely upon their 30 minutes of news a day are completely unaware of what is happening in Connecticut. Therefore a bit of background may be necessary to bring them up to speed.

After the shooting at Newtown Connecticut, commonly referred to as the Sandy Hook shooting, on April 3, 2013 Connecticut passed a new law entitled, An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety. It appears that only a fraction of the owners of the assault weapons covered by this new law have applied for the long gun eligibility certificate as required by law.

Recently, Connecticut’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, a division of the Connecticut State Police, sent out letters to many residents who failed to file the proper paperwork by the deadline, stating that these people need to: a) render their weapon and/or magazines inoperable, b) sell the weapon/magazine to a licensed firearms dealer, c) move the weapon out of the state, or d) turn the weapon in to law enforcement, or the Dept. of Emergency Services.

There is no telling at this point as to whether the governor of Connecticut will order the State Police to confiscate the weapons/magazines of those who filed the paperwork late, or even make an effort to discern who may have these banned long guns and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Yet the stage is set, the players are in position to repeat what happened at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. It would indeed be ironic if things move past the current stalemate on the same date in 2014. But, I get ahead of myself.

Although a large number of Americans support stricter gun laws as a means to prevent the type shootings such as that which has taken place all over the country, at places such as Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Columbine, there are also a large number of people who realize that guns don’t kill, it is the people wielding them that do.

We also realize that the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment was not so that we could hunt, target shoot, or even defend ourselves or our homes against crime. The Second Amendment was written so that the people could remain armed, in a sufficient manner, that should their government become tyrannical and oppressive they could rise up and fight back against it. With a government that has the latest in military weaponry at its disposal that would be very hard to do were the citizens deprived of the right to own any of these so-called assault weapons there has been so much talk of banning.

Over the course of my fifty some odd years on this planet I have watched as laws have been passed which limit that right, and as the attitudes of the people of this country have been manipulated into a state of almost manic fear of guns and those who own them. Yet while the people have been brainwashed into believing that an armed society is a dangerous society, they flock to theaters where gun violence is the norm, and their children grow up playing video games where the object is to go out and kill the enemy. With our youth being raised by parents who keep their guns locked away from their kids, and their constant exposure to violence in the media, we are only asking for problems. The solution, in my opinion, is not to ban guns, or restrict our kids from access to them, but to educate them from an early age as to their function, and safe handling. I find it ironic that the schools teach sex education yet they say they are not teaching our kids to be promiscuous, yet they won’t teach or kids how to safely handle a firearm. The hypocrisy is so thick I could not cut it with a chain saw.

Getting back to Connecticut, a blogger, who I will leave nameless at this point, recently posted an article that contained the names, AND home addresses of all the Connecticut state legislators who voted in favor of this assault weapons ban. Some people are saying that should the Connecticut State Police attempt to confiscate these weapons and fire upon anyone who resists that those who voted in favor of this new law may find themselves victims of retribution by folks who are fed up with the continued infringement of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

This article is not addressed to my friends who own guns, although they are more than likely to be the only ones to agree with me. Instead, it is addressed to those who favor stricter gun laws. I am well aware that it will probably do no good, your minds are simply not wired to understand facts. Instead they are wired to react emotionally without regard to whether the things you expect your government to do to make you safer will infringe upon anyone’s rights. Yet try I must, because you see, if I were living in Connecticut I WOULD be among those who refused to obey the laws they have passed, and I can see the day when this could happen in California, or any other state for that matter.

The reason I would not obey is not simply a matter of disrespect for authority, it is a matter of respect for the law. The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That is the law. It was duly ratified by the requisite number of states and added to the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. There has been much argument regarding the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment. Most recently in the case of D.C. v Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of citizens to own firearms is not tied to service in the milita, that it is an individual right. However, they also said that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.

By doing so they left a loophole in their ruling that leaves it wide open for states to pass firearms laws which they deem is within their power. This is exactly what Connecticut did, and which was upheld by U.S. District Judge Alfred Covello when he ruled that Connecticut’s ban on assault weapons was within their authority to protect its citizens.

Judge Covello’s ruling is no different than the ban California has imposed on certain weapons within California which are perfectly legal to own in other states such as Nevada, Colorado, and Texas. By not stating that the Second Amendment included all types of arms, or by specifying which arms the people are permitted to keep and bear, the Supreme Court has left it up to each state to decide for itself which guns its citizens are allowed to purchase and possess.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1, in part states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

By leaving the question of which firearms the citizens of one state may own unanswered the Supreme Court has ensured that we DO NOT have equal protection under the law. After all, the Second Amendment is part and parcel of the Constitution, and the Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the land. And in 1886 the Supreme Court ruled that “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances.” Ex parte Milligan

In numerous discussions with friends I have been asked if the government can pass laws such as the one passed in Connecticut, which makes it a crime to do something which wasn’t a crime before. I have also been asked what can we do to fight these laws, if they be unconstitutional.

In answer to the first question, as far as the federal government goes the Constitution declares that no ex post facto laws shall be passed. An ex post facto law is one in which retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the law was enacted. Therefore they may pass a bill which bans the sale of certain types of firearms, but they cannot make it a crime for those who had already purchased that type weapon before the law was enacted. I would have to say that since the federal government is prohibited from doing so, the states would also be prohibited. But of that I cannot be certain.

As to the second question, this is where it gets tricky. In 1821 James Madison delivered a speech to the Virginia constitutional convention, where he said, “The essence of government is power; and lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever by liable to abuse.”

However, in 1824 Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to John Cartwright in which he said, “We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” (my emphasis)

It is basic human nature that those in positions of power and authority will seek to expand their power over others, and that they will guard jealously any power they have acquired. Two hundred twenty five years ago the people of this country created a system of government; they gave it certain defined powers while limiting its power in other regards; furthermore they later passed certain amendments which were designed to protect the rights of the people from encroachment by this newly created federal government.

That is why the Bill of Rights ALSO has a preamble, stating its purpose. “THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…”

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

Let that sink in. By saying that the Bill of Rights withdrew certain subjects from vicissitudes of political controversy and placed them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, he meant that the rights protected by the Bill of Rights could not be legislated upon, and it did not matter that the entire nation clamored for laws infringing upon a certain right, they simply could not do so.

But we are no longer a Republic, in which the rule of law guides our elected officials. We have become a true democracy where the majority can overrule the minority…even when it comes to infringing upon our unalienable rights.

Maybe I’m just stupid, but by Justice Jackson saying that I understand the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed to mean exactly what it says, that no lawmaker can pass a law saying what kind of guns I may own, demand that I register them, or require that I obtain a permit to carry them on my person. Therefore I need not obey any law which does so.

Numerous court rulings have declared that our rights cannot be legislated away from us. In Miranda v. Arizona the Court ruled, “Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.”

In Miller v. U.S. the Court ruled, “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”

In fact, the courts, and individual justices have declared that we do not have to obey laws which violate our rights.

Justice Potter Stewart ruled, “The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it’s invalid on its face.”

Justice William O. Douglas declared, “When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen’s constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all.”

American jurisprudence is the Encyclopedia of U.S. law. From the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence I quote, “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

From a strictly legal standpoint, the Second Amendment, and the entire Bill of Rights for that matter are off limits to lawmakers and judges. They cannot define what is meant by arms and then pick and choose which arms they will permit us to own, and which ones they won’t. One of the lesser known Founding Fathers, Tenche Coxe, once wrote, “Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…”

Coxe began his statement by saying, “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves.” To which he concluded by saying, “The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

But still this does not answer the question of what can we do if the government passes laws which violate our rights. This is where each and every person reading this is going to have to make a decision. As long as a majority of the people continue to ask their legislators, at both the state and federal levels, to enact laws which they feel will make them safer and more secure, the government will gladly oblige.

As I said, those in power will seek to enlarge their power, and they will jealously protect whatever power they have over us. Something Malcolm X once said bears considering, “Power never takes a step back–only in the face of more power.”

We cannot expect our government to simply back down and restore those rights they have trampled upon. If we want them back we are going to have to show them that we will not tolerate any infringements upon them. That can be done by either one of two ways; either by massive civil disobedience by the people, or by revolution where we throw all the corrupt lawmakers out and hope that we can replace them with ones who will support and defend the Constitution, and safeguard our rights.

With the large number of people who simply don’t understand our system of government, who don’t care about protecting their rights, let alone ours, we simply cannot expect to win a battle of this magnitude at the ballot box.

I’m not suggesting to anyone that they take up arms and revolt against the government, I am simply saying that I only see two options, and this is one of them. To most people me saying that makes it sound like I am some kind of terrorist and a threat to national security. But our nation was established by armed resistance against its existing government.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

In Federalist 28 Alexander Hamilton wrote, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…”

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote, “The right to revolt has sources deep in our history.” Source: An Almanac of Liberty, 1954
Even Abraham Lincoln said, “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.”

What I’m trying to say is that our government is not going to give up the power it has usurped, and restore the rights it has violated without a fight. The people of this country, for the most part, are too fearful of an armed citizenry and would gladly see all of our guns taken from is if they could possibly do so. They do not realize that if we were to lose our guns there would be no one left in this country to protect the few rights they do care about.

As James Madison said in his Memorial and Remonstrance, “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.

The rulers who are guilty of such encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves.”

Each of us must decide how much we value our rights, and how far we will go to protect them against tyranny. You may not call gun control tyranny, but when a law makes it a crime to exercise a right, I call it tyranny. And I include among the tyrants not only those who enact these laws which oppress us, but each and every other who has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution, yet through their position as agents of the government, or law enforcement officers enforce these laws which limit our ability to freely exercise our rights.

Just remember something our second president John Adams said, “But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” At some point in time we must all make a decision as to when and where we will take a stand, or as George Washington said, “The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves.”
It is you who will have to decide whether you wish to fight for your rights and remain free, or live as slaves without the means to resist oppression. I have already made my choice…

When you read, or hear something, you have a choice which you must make. You must decide whether to accept it as the truth, or reject it as a lie. What then is the truth? Truth is defined as: the state of being the case; the body of real things, events, and facts. The opposite then is a lie; something that is inaccurate, deceptive, or misleading, and most importantly, untrustworthy.

Doesn’t it therefore seem logical that people would prefer the truth over a lie? Wouldn’t it seem prudent to seek out the truth for yourself instead of simply taking someone’s word that what you are being told is the truth? Or is taking the time to find out if you’ve been lied to simply too much work?

Unfortunately it seems that people are often more willing to accept that what they are being told is truthful, than to make the effort to find out if it may indeed be false. I don’t know about you but I was raised to tell the truth, and to not trust anyone who lied to me. Not that I haven’t told lies myself over the course of my lifetime, but I do try my best to speak with truthfulness and to not deceive anyone by the things I say. This is nowhere more evident than in my writings.

As the definition of truth states, the truth is the body of real things, events, and facts. As best as humanly possible I base all my opinions upon facts and I try to provide as much supporting evidence to back up my opinions. But nine times out of ten, when I find someone who disagrees with my viewpoint, I am met, not with contradictory facts, but with emotional outbursts.

Why is it that the truth is so repulsive to so many? Could it be because the truth is not politically correct; it does not sugar coat the facts? The truth shines a big bright light on all equally. The truth can ruin friendships, end relationships, and topple governments, but all this depends upon whether people chose to seek it out. If you ignore it, you are living life looking through rose colored glasses that only hide the truth. The truth is reality, all you have to do is have the courage and conviction to accept it, otherwise you are living a lie.

You see, the truth does not take sides, it is non-partisan, it does not care about your skin color, your gender, your sexual orientation, or anything else for that matter. The truth is honesty in that it only cares about facts and evidence.

A quick example: In the 1970′s Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency because of the scandal regarding the break in, and the attempted wiretapping and monitoring of documents at the DNC Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. Yet 4 decades later we have a sitting president who is doing the same thing on a national level and very few people even seem to care. In the 70′s the Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein were hailed as heroes from breaking this story, yet in 2014 Edward Snowden who broke details regarding the level of spying upon the American people by their government had to flee the country for fear of being imprisoned.

Now you tell me, which president is guilty of a higher crime? And, as Americans, which generation is guilty of not caring about the level of corruption by a sitting president?

Now I’m not saying that this spying upon the people by their government is something new, it isn’t, it has been going on for a very long time. But when facts regarding details of a program initiated by their government do not cause the same outrage it would have 4 decades earlier, there is something wrong with the people of this country. Yet if anyone calls for this program to end we are told that we must endure these simple inconveniences because we are at war, and that we must combat terrorism in any way possible. I don’t buy it.

The 4th Amendment to the Constitution is clear, it says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Have you been presented with a warrant stating what information the government is looking for when it monitors your phone calls, your text messages, you Facebook posts, and your e mails? Has probable cause been given to prove that you or I pose a terrorist threat? If so who has sworn the oath saying that we pose a threat?

The TRUTH is that it is a crime to listen in on other people’s conversations without a search warrant, and it matters not whether it is done for personal or professional gain, as was the spying at the Watergate Hotel, or in the name of national security as has been done by presidents like Bush and Obama. That is the truth, but the truth does not seem to matter to many people these days as many still believe that these things are necessary evils to keep us safe and secure.

Another truth, our government is full of hypocrites. At this very moment violent political protests are taking place in the city of Kiev in the Ukraine. Both president Obama, and Vice-president Biden have called for restraint by the Ukrainian government in regards to these protests. Yet would they show the same restraint if hundreds of thousands of violent protesters were at their doorstep in Washington D.C.? How long would they allow protests such as what is going on in Kiev continue before they called out the National Guard to restore peace? All one has to do is look at past history to see how well the government deals with any type of anti-government sentiments. You can believe the official story if you want, but Waco is a perfect example of what happens when people try to live their lives free of governmental interference. The government will squash any resistance to their power and authority like you’d squash a cockroach with your shoe.

Another truth. 911, people believe the official story because our government would not lie to us about something so horrific. Yet there is plenty of evidence showing that they knew in advance something was going to happen. Yet when those planes diverted from course there were no military aircraft dispatched to see why, which as I understand was standard procedure in the case of a commercial aircraft diverting from its registered flight plan.

Also there are plenty of people, myself among them, who believe the twin towers, and more importantly, building 7, did not come down because of the impact of the planes. Those buildings were specifically designed to withstand the impact of a commercial plane. Look it up if you don’t believe me. Yet why was molten metal found in the basement of the twin towers when the planes hit 800 ft above? Why did not one, but two steel structures fall at almost free fall speed into their own footprints without toppling over sideways, taking out buildings on either side? Why do were the reports of first responders who survived that tell of explosions IN THE BASEMENT not shared with the news media? And why was there a BBC broadcast saying that building 7 had collapsed, yet the video feed clearly show that it was standing behind the reporter? Did they know in advance it was going to collapse and got the timing of their report wrong?

Too many unanswered questions regarding what happened that day for me to believe the official story. I’m not saying our government did it, but I’m not saying it didn’t either. I only want to know THE TRUTH.

Now you may say that our government simply isn’t capable, isn’t evil enough to commit acts of terror like that upon its own people, then you should do some homework. In the early 60′s top military leaders in the U.S. drew up plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities, and then blame the Castro regime for them in an effort to stir up anti-Castro sentiment in the U.S. These plans were called Operation Northwood, and were, thankfully, rejected. But to say that people wouldn’t plan, and even possibly execute plans like that is to deny that man is capable of great evil and no country is exempt from evil.

Like I said, I only seek the truth. Did our government know in advance? Did they let it happen to stir up anger so we could go to war in the Middle East? And, were they somehow involved in the events that transpired on 911?

But it seems the memory span of most people in this country doesn’t last much longer than a half hour sitcom. You watch, should Hillary run, and God forbid, get elected in 2016, any mention of her failure to take action while Americans came under attack in Benghazi will be shut down by cries of “You don’t like her because she’s the first woman president.” Just the same as any calls for action against Obama are met with cries of “You don’t like him because he’s black.”

No, I don’t like these people because they are liars, they are criminals, and they are violating their oath to uphold the Constitution. That’s the only reason I don’t like them. But then again those who call me names because I oppose the actions of people like them do not have any FACTS to support their claims, so they resort to name calling, an politically correct rhetoric to try and silence THE TRUTH.

All I’m asking, and I know it’s a lot, is for you to be open to the truth, even though it may clash violently with what you currently believe. I know it’s a lot, but it can be done. I was once a staunch supporter of the GOP, believing in this lie of conservative versus liberals. Yet I woke up, I did some research and found the truth, that there really is no difference between the two parties, that they are both controlled by the same people who are keeping us divided by the lie that we have a choice over who runs this country. We don’t, and we never will until we ALL find the truth.

In closing I’d like to leave you with a few random quotes about the truth.

“Never tell the truth to people who are not worthy of it.” -Mark Twain

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” -Aldous Huxely

“The truth is not always beautiful, nor beautiful words the truth.” -Lao Tzu (Tao Te Ching)

“People often claim to hunger for truth, but seldom like the taste when it’s served up.”
-George Martin

And finally, George Orwell once said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

It is my hope that you will seek out the truth, as it has been said that the truth shall set you free. That is of course unless you do not wish freedom, then by all means, continue to believe the lies you are being told.

For a long time now I have wondered why it is that some people, myself among them, are more willing to seek out the truth when so many others are content to live their lives oblivious as to what is going on right in front of their eyes. Why do some people refuse to question what is obviously a lie, when others have the courage to stand alone and question it?

Is it just human nature that some people need to feel a part of a group and that by questioning the consensus of the majority they risk losing that feeling of belonging? Is it that fear of rocking the boat, of having to stand alone on your own beliefs with no one there to support you that frightens some?

A few days ago I had nothing to do so I picked up my copy of Atlas Shrugged and began reading it again. On page 49 of my copy I ran across something which rekindled this whole thought process. It was when Orrin Boyle, Wesley Mouch, and James Taggart were meeting in a bar discussing Reardon Metal, and James Taggart said the following, “When everybody agrees,” Taggart’s voice suddenly went shrill, “when the people are unanimous, how does one man dare to dissent? By what right?”

That’s the way I see people react when I badmouth our government, their political party, or a particular candidate for office, “How dare I bring out the faults of these people, their lies, or their failure to uphold their sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution…how dare I!!!”

But whether a person chooses to accept the truth, or to ignore it, the truth remains the truth. You can say that I am badmouthing your candidate, or a president, but I am only speaking the truth. If that offends you, then it is the truth that offends you, not I. And if the truth offends you, then it must mean that you prefer to believe a lie. These are simple premises that cannot be denied; you either choose to accept the truth, or your choose to believe a lie.

It reminds me of the scene from the first Matrix movie where Morpheus offers Neo the red and the blue pills. Morpheus tells Neo, “This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.”

You see, that’s the problem with the truth, once you learn it you can’t un-learn it. You can choose to go through life completely unaware of the truth that is readily available, but you if things go wrong, if those in power completely strip you of all your rights you are not justified in saying, “But I didn’t know this was going to happen.”

Ignorance comes with a cost, and that cost is that whatever happens could have been prevented had you taken the time to become informed and make an effort to stave off impending disaster. The flip side is that once you make that conscious choice to educate yourself, you have an obligation to try to inform others, even if it means you are shunned by those who you once considered friends.

Wherever I go, and whenever I hear discussions about politics, I am amazed at the things I hear coming out of people’s mouths. The things they say in support of a particular candidate, or the purpose for their government, when compared to what the document which establishes that government, clearly show that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Author Harlan Ellison once said, “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” Yet in his novel Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury also said, “But you can’t make people listen. They have to come round in their own time, wondering what happened and why the world blew up around them.”

Unfortunately, most people would rather choose to believe a lie than to seek out the truth. Sometimes you hear things from people, that due to their status in society, or their own personal beliefs, you choose to reject. Take for instance Aleister Crowley the occultist who due to his beliefs was scorned by many. Yet he once said something that I find to be very true, “The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and willfully to reject the truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.”

I find it sad that when I was speaking out against the things President George W. Bush was doing that the Democrats I know all supported my position. Yet when I speak out against the things Barack Obama is doing they turn on me and call me all kinds of names. The same was true amongst my Republican friends when I spoke out against Clinton, yet they turned on me when I spoke out against Bush.

All I do is compare the actions of a sitting president, or member of Congress to what our Constitution says, or what our Founders envisioned for this nation. If the actions of current members of our government conflict with what the Constitution says, then I speak out against it. I take no sides, I only speak out for truth. Yet why am I, and others like me, so few and far between? Why are we labeled as threats to our nation’s security, domestic terrorists, when all we do is support the principles upon which this once great nation was founded?

I hate to sound incendiary, as I am so often reminded, but Albert Einstein once said, “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” But when people refuse to think, when they refuse to examine the facts and make an informed decision based upon them, I can barely hold back from telling them how stupid they all appear to me.

I can understand wanting to be part of a group, or the need to be accepted. What I cannot understand is the willingness to believe a lie when the cost of doing so is so great, and of such importance. That, I cannot abide. Yet it may all come back to human nature, that need to not rock the boat or cause a commotion.

As Mark Twain once said, “In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” But until that happens, until the cause succeeds, something Voltaire said also is equally true, “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”

Maybe we will all just have to wait, for what Bradbury said, wait for the world, or this country at least, to blow up around them before they realize that they should have taken the time to inform themselves and to defend the truth.

A week or so I was explaining to a friend at work how currency is introduced into our economy by the FED. After I finished he said, “Damn Neal, what the hell are you doing here dumping fruit, you are too smart for this shit.” While this isn’t the first time that someone has told me that I’m really smart, the problem is that what good does all this knowledge do me when I can’t get people to think about any of it?
Contrary to what people say, I really don’t consider myself that smart. As Alexander Hamilton once said, “Men give me credit for some genius. All the genius I have is this. When I have a subject in mind. I study it profoundly. Day and night it is before me. My mind becomes pervaded with it… the effort which I have made is what people are pleased to call the fruit of genius. It is the fruit of labor and thought.”

It all depends upon what a person is interested in. I can’t invent new life-saving technologies nor can I compose a symphony, yet I can understand the writings and thought process of the people who established our Republic. I read, and re-read, and RE-READ again the writings of our Founding Fathers, and the men who influenced them, and I then compare what they said to what I see in our country today and I am absolutely amazed that anyone in this country can say that our country even comes close to resembling what our Founders had envisioned.

I don’t know who Joseph Sobran is but I saw a graphic on the internet awhile ago of something he said that has stuck with me. It stated, “In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to teaching Remedial English in college.” But it’s not just language skills that our children our deficient in, it is a sense of national self, an understanding of the history and the political system of the country they live in that our children are lacking. Noah Webster, whose name is synonymous with Webster’s Dictionary, once said, “Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country.”

You tell me, can our children do that? Can our adults? Can you? Ask anyone, ask yourself to recite the opening of the Declaration of Independence from memory, or the Preamble to the Constitution for that matter. Ask anyone how many amendments comprise the Bill of Rights and what rights they protect. Chances are they will ignore you, or say, “How the hell should I know?”

Yet when a people, as an entity, do not know how their nation was founded, or the principles upon which their system of government was established, it is an easy task for those in power to usurp powers which it was never intended they possess. Although it has been falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson, the following quote is nonetheless true, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.”

If you, and by you I mean the people of this country, do not know the limits our Founders imposed upon those who we would elect to represent us, who is to stop them from assuming powers it was intended they do not exercise, or to halt the erosion of your rights for which the government was created to protect?

You look at what happens in this country today when people like Ron Paul talk about a Constitutionally limited government, or when groups such as the Tea Party speak out against the abuses of power by the government; they are ridiculed, denigrated, and shunned by the two main political parties in this country. Why is it that a nation that supposedly prides itself on freedom of speech and open-mindedness, shuns any discussion of a government which clearly has violated the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution? Just look at what happened to Edward Snowden when he risked everything to bring to your attention the extent to which your government is spying on the public.

The reason he had to flee for his own safety is because evil does not like having the spotlight shone upon it. Too many people still think they have a choice in the November elections to choose someone who will represent them, be it a governor, a Senator, or a President. We are given two choices, sometimes more, but most always they are Republican or Democrat and they are basically vying for their turn to impose their vision of an all powerful government upon the people.

You may tell yourself that there is a difference between the two parties and that we have to elect the lesser of the two evils if we wish to halt the decline of our nation. But if we choose a lesser evil, aren’t we still getting evil? If you want to know who runs this country you need to follow the money. I’m not talking about who contributes to the campaigns of those running for office, I’m talking about those who finance the party machines behind them. I’m talking about who funds the Republican and the Democrat parties. They are the machines that generate the candidates we choose from, and they will not fund, or support, anyone who strays from their respective platforms. Just look at how the Republican Party shunned Ron Paul, even though he was running as a GOP candidate for president. I have my own questions about Ron Paul, but if you REALLY wanted a lesser of two evils for president, he was the one you SHOULD HAVE voted for.

But we have become such obedient little sheeple that we follow orders and believe everything we are told by the supposed pundits and experts, it has gotten so bad that we are damn near incapable of forming an intelligent thought of our own. How else can you explain why so many people go about their lives uncaring that their rights are slowly being eradicated and that our country is moving closer and closer to a complete police state?

Just look at how many, quote unquote, law ENFORCEMENT agencies the government has at its disposal to keep YOU in line. Yet where is the law enforcement to keep our government in line with the Constitution? Answer me that Batman. You violate any of the laws our government enacts and some agency is tasked with ensuring that you are fined, arrested, or imprisoned for your offense. Yet can we the people fine, arrest, or imprison those who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution? I dare you, no, I double dare you to walk into your representatives office and place them under citizen’s arrest for violating their oath. Just watch what happens to YOU.

No folks, we live in a police state where the real criminals are in charge and there is not much you can do about it as long as you continue to believe that we have a free democratic process. And believe me, the criminals have been busy just in case one day the people of this country do wake up to their treason or if by their mismanagement of affairs our country suffers a catastrophic economic collapse.

Most people shake their heads in disbelief when someone mentions the things I am about to say, but facts are facts and you are a fool if you expect the government to come out and confirm the things I am going to say. But as a lover of liberty I cannot, in clear conscience, not try to warn you.

The government has camps, some call them FEMA Camps, some call them relocation centers, but they are basically prisons. They are all over the country and they are designed for one thing only, to put large numbers of people in the event things get out of hand in America. If people such as myself, those who try to warn people about the abuses of power by their government, are not initially exterminated, we will be housed there. So will those who are non-productive members of society. So those of you who are as happy as a pig in a shit right now due to all those benefits you get from Uncle Sam at no cost, you may one day find yourself in one of these facilities.

Just look back through your history when any system of government becomes totalitarian…what happens to those who dissent or serve no useful purpose? Look to Nazi Germany and the SS, or Soviet era Russia with the KGB and their gulags. Think that can’t, or won’t, happen in America? Keep dreaming.

Just look at the Department of Homeland Security. Why in the world do they need all those armored vehicles they have, or the millions of rounds of ammo they have been purchasing? Now I’m hearing that they are planning to purchase 141,000 rounds of sniper ammunition. Are they expecting a war, and if so, against whom? Call me crazy but I think they are expecting something, be it enough of the people waking up to their governments crimes, or a social upheaval do to an economic collapse. Whatever the case they are gearing up for something, and most people today are completely oblivious to it.

Then there are all the Executive Orders that have been in place, some of them dating back to when JFK was president. There is EO 10995 which allows the government to seize control of the media. Why would they want to do that unless it was to halt the flow of information to the people? But that’s not all.

There is EO 10999 which allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports; there is EO 10997 which allows government to take over control of all electrical power, gas, fuels and minerals; there is EO 10998 which allows government to take over all food resources and farms; and finally EO 10000 which allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under supervision of federal agents. It even allows for the breaking up of families if it is deemed in the public’s best interest. Why would they issue Executive Orders such as these if they never intend to use them?

But no, we don’t live in a police state say the sheeple. Maybe, at least for now we don’t, not to the degree I am talking about. But the infrastructure is in place and all they need is the right crisis for them to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, impose martial law, and then what are you going to do?

You tell me, with all this spying our government is doing; with all those drones, not only capable of spying, but firing upon you, flying around; with all that ammo being purchased and all those armored vehicles being purchased by DHS and even local law enforcement, aren’t you just a BIT CONCERNED? Or is what’s on prime time tonight more important?

Sorry people, you’ve been brainwashed into following orders, to obeying anyone in a position of authority, and to NOT question anything. The terms serve and protect no longer have any meaning for those whose job it is to enforce the law. They are here to KEEP YOU IN LINE. The moment you question their authority, or the legality of what they are doing, you are tazed, pepper sprayed, beaten into submission, or even shot and killed. In the America of 2014 there is no room for civil disobedience.

Like I said, America is way behind the curve. The average person still thinks this is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Well, if your among those that do, I ask that you try questioning authority, try disobeying some law you find to be unconstitutional. You’ll quickly find out how free you are, that is if you are even brave enough to attempt it.

May our Founders Republic rest in peace…

President Obama, and members of Congress,

During the recent State of the Union Address our president asked that we fix our broken immigration system by passing Comprehensive Immigration reform. I am sick and tired of hearing that our immigration system is broken. The only thing that is broken is your resolve to enforce existing immigration law.

I can understand the Democrats reason for this as a majority of those any amnesty would affect will become voting Democrats. However, I hear rumors that the GOP hopes that by possibly supporting such an effort these new Americans might end up becoming registered Republicans. What you so-called conservatives fail to recognize is that if you do indeed support such an effort that you will lose the support of a large number of your base now, who will in all likelihood vote for Tea Party candidates to replace those who supported any form of amnesty proposed by the President.

In 1986 when Ronald Reagan signed into law the Simpson-Mazzoli Act we were promised three things; the government would make a concerted effort to control our nation’s borders, an effective employer verification program would ensure that only legal workers were being hired, and a ONE-TIME amnesty would be granted for people already in this country illegally.

So, either my government is completely inept and cannot handle the job of safeguarding our borders, or it flat out lied to us and had absolutely no intention of ever trying to halt the flow of illegal aliens into our country. Only you people know the truth, but I have my own suspicions which I will keep to myself for now.

But the fact of the matter is that there isn’t a damn thing wrong with our immigration system, the only problem is that the laws already on the books are not being enforced.

But seeing as how you people end up doing whatever the hell you want to, regardless of what a majority of the people you represent think, I have a few conditions I must ask that you agree to before I even begin to consider supporting your call for another amnesty.
Here they are, and these are all non-negotiable:

First, before one single person in this country illegally is pardoned for their crime each and every person who has gone through the proper channels, filed the proper paperwork, and has yet to be granted a visa must be allowed to come to this country. In 2000 I filed all the proper paperwork to bring my wife’s sister in the Philippines to the U.S. Her petition was approved but she has yet to be granted a visa. Each year I call to check the status of her case and all I am told is that it is pending. If you want me to support any form of amnesty for those who entered this country illegally, this pending nonsense must come to an end and all those who went through proper channels be allowed to enter the U.S.

Secondly, before anyone is granted amnesty, you MUST complete a border fence along our southern border, quadruple the number of Border Patrol Agents, and give them complete authority to shoot on sight anyone entering this country illegally.

You accomplish these two things and you will be well on your way to gaining my support for any so-called Comprehensive Immigration reform, which inevitably will include some form of amnesty. But I’m not done yet.

Once it is proclaimed that an amnesty of sorts is available for all those in this country illegally, a one year grace period will commence. Anyone who does not take advantage of this grace period and apply for citizenship will lose the chance and be deported.

Also, commencing on the day these applicants for citizenship file their paperwork, they will be ineligible for any form of taxpayer funded social programs for a period of ten years. During this time they must find, and stay employed, paying into the system for ten years before they become eligible to receive any tax funded benefits.

Next, each applicant for citizenship MUST learn enough English to become a functionally fluent member of society. There will be no more of our having to pander to their inability, or lack of desire to learn OUR common language, which is English. If they fail to learn enough of OUR language to function in society, they will be sent home to wherever it is they came from.

Furthermore, each of these applicants for citizenship, including family members, must abide by our laws whilst living on our soil. If any of them commits a crime, the entire family will have their citizenship status revoked and be sent back to wherever it is they came from. This includes any gang affiliation by their children, DUI convictions, or even domestic disputes calls. In short, they must be exemplary examples of Americans or else they go home.

Finally, each of these new citizens must completely become an American. The current oath of citizenship begins with, “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…”

I am not asking that these people forsake entirely their heritage, but their loyalty MUST be to America first, or we don’t want them here. As former President Woodrow Wilson once stated in an address to newly sworn in citizens, “I certainly would not be the one to even suggest that a man cease to love the home of his birth and the nation of his origin. These things are very sacred and ought not to be put out of our hearts. But it is one thing to love the place where you were born, and it is another to dedicate yourself to the place to which you go. You cannot dedicate yourself to America unless you become in every respect and with every purpose of your will thoroughly Americans. You cannot become thoroughly Americans if you think of yourself in groups. A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American, and a man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is not worthy to live under the stars and stripes.”

If these people wish to come to this country that had better do so because they love America, not because it is the land of plentiful benefits. And if they come here they better prove, by each and every action they take, that they love this country. This includes them not joining in groups, or supporting activities which are intended to publicly promote their heritage or national history. The ONLY heritage and history they should be concerned with is ours. If they cannot accept this then they have not ‘renounced’ their allegiance to their homeland, and as Woodrow Wilson said, they are not worthy to live under the stars and stripes.

These are my conditions, and as I said, they are non-negotiable. And believe me, were I to pass this around as a petition you would be surprised at how many more of your constituents are in complete agreement with me.

Please take them into consideration before you ask me to support any form of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Thank you for your time and consideration, although as I said, you are going to do whatever you damn well please regardless of what we think.

In a way it is funny, but then again it is also kind of sad, but since I began writing 15 some odd years ago I find myself right back where it all started for me, discussing the issue of gun control. I have to tell you, I am getting awfully damned fed up with people and their almost manic phobia regarding guns. Let me explain why I call it a manic phobia.

This morning before I headed off to work I read an article on an ABC website about how to ask other parents if they keep guns in their homes. It seems some parents are so afraid that their little child is going to go to a friend’s house and find a gun and accidentally shoot someone, or themselves.

There is so much wrong with this that I hardly know where to begin. First of all, if you are that afraid of guns, you are most likely passing that fear on to your child. If that is the case, I don’t want your pansy assed kid anywhere near mine. Secondly, kids are naturally curious about things. If they see a gun and have never been shown one, or taught how to respect them for what they are, of course if they see one they may pick it up and ‘play’ with it.

But let me tell you something, I grew up with guns all over our house. My dad kept loaded revolvers on the end tables in the living room, loaded guns in his dresser in the master bedroom, and loaded rifles in the closet. The difference was that I was taught from an early age what guns were and that they were not toys to be played with.

But when we have a society that doesn’t teach our children about the safe handling of firearms, but have TV shows, movies, and video games that all contain people using guns, then what do you expect the kids to do when they come across a real gun? I blame the parents of these kids, not the owners of the guns.

Then when I was at work today I was telling someone about this very story and the person I was talking to told me about how his sister had recently flown out to California from somewhere back east. He told me that as she was going through security one of the agents noticed a metallic firearm emblem on her purse. He told her she would have to remove it from her purse, or leave the purse behind, if she wished to board the plane. WHAT THE HELL? It’s an emblem for crying out loud! It was only two to three inches long, it was not a real firearm, but the told her she couldn’t take a purse with an emblem of a gun onto a plane?

Although that upset me tremendously, it did not surprise me. After all we have all read the news stories about kids being suspended from school due to this so-called zero tolerance for anything resembling a firearm.

First there was 7 year old Josh Welch who was suspended for chewing a Pop Tart into the shape of a pistol. Then there was the 6 yr old Silver Spring boy who was suspended for pointing his finger like a gun and saying “pow.” And then there was 7 yr old Christopher Marshall, a Virginia boy, who was suspended for pretending a pencil was a gun at school. God forbid these kids had made a rubber band gun and shot at each other like we used to do in school.

By our schools doing this to kids what message are we teaching them? Honestly, if any kid today was to do half the stuff I did as a kid it wouldn’t surprise me to see Homeland Security called in and the child detained as a terrorist. It’s absolutely ridiculous!

I can recall walking through the parking lot of my high school and seeing pickup truck after pickup truck with shotguns and hunting rifles in the rear windows. Can you imagine the panic were that to happen today? To paraphrase a quote from the Joker in The Dark Knight, “I mean, what happened America? Did your balls drop off?” Why this manic fear of guns?

Let me tell you something, a gun is only as dangerous as the person who is handling it. You put a gun on a table and leave it there and no one, and I mean NO ONE is going to get hurt by it. But let one idiot, or one person who has never been properly trained on how to handle firearms pick it up and then you are asking for trouble.

Let me tell you something else. According to statistics there are many other things that cause far more deaths in this country than firearms. From the National Vital Statistics Report in the year 2013 tobacco caused 577,512 deaths, medical errors caused 212,882 deaths, alcohol abuse caused 117,249 deaths, vehicle accidents caused 45,852, drug abuse 27,838, and then firearm homicide was at 11,821.

Now don’t get me wrong, eleven thousand deaths is nothing to be proud of, but consider that for every one person killed by a firearm, four where killed in vehicle accidents, ten from alcohol abuse, 21 by doctors making mistakes in their treatment, and 57 from tobacco products. Yet there is no outcry from stricter laws regarding the ownership of cars, for the consumption of alcohol and tobacco, and certainly nothing regarding restricting visits to your doctor. So again, why this fear of guns?

Yet we have people like Bob Costas, who acts as announcer during NFL football games, calling for stricter gun laws, yet football games are notorious for alcohol consumption, and alcohol kills far more people in this country than do firearms. But you don’t hear Bob Costas calling for a ban on Budweiser…do you?

You might not like guns. You might not like that I, and millions of other Americans have guns, but you know what? Tough shit! We have this little thing called the Second Amendment which protects our right to own them. Knowing that there are that many guns out there in the hands of millions of people might scare you. You might be scared shitless that your neighbor may have an arsenal in his home. But if you don’t have guns and someone breaks into your home, what do you do? You call the cops, people who have guns, to come protect you. How pathetically hypocritical is that? You dislike guns but the moment you feel threatened you call people with guns to come protect your sorry ass. Honestly if it were up to me, if you refused to purchase a firearm, and learn how to use it, then when you dial 911 I’d say that if you didn’t care enough to make an effort to protect yourself you don’t deserve to have someone else come and do it for you. That’s what I’d say.

But getting back to the Second Amendment, our Founders put it there for a reason. It wasn’t so that we could go hunt deer as you frequently hear the anti gun lobby proclaim. It wasn’t so that we could go to the range and shoot at paper targets or empty beer cans. It wasn’t even so that we could protect ourselves from burglars, rapists, and other criminals. It was so that we could protect ourselves from a government that might one day grow too big for its britches and try to take our other rights away. In that manner the Second Amendment is a doomsday clause should all other methods of redress fail.

And like it or not the Courts have upheld that our rights cannot be infringed, or taken away for those of you who are deficient in your vocabularies.

In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled, “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” And again for those of you who are English deficient, abrogate means to do away with.

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

It does not matter what our lawmakers today say, or even what the Supreme Court says today about our right to keep and bear firearms. In the case of State v. Sutton it was ruled, “When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.”

So even if the almighty Supreme Court upholds a law banning our right to keep and bear arms, it is a natural right, it is an inherent right, [part of the very nature of something, and therefore permanently characteristic of it or necessarily involved in it], and it is an unalienable right, [incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523].

As former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once said, “It is my belief that there are ‘absolutes’ in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolutes.’”

So, when the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it means just that, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It doesn’t matter if guns give you the heeby jeebies, get over it. Because the truth of the matter is that those of us who understand what the Founders meant, and intended, when they put the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights, have no intention of ever letting a bunch of pussies take our guns away from us because they are scared of them.

So, grow a set of balls and get used to the fact that we are gonna keep our guns. Honestly, there may come a time when you are thankful that we have them.

Everyone, no matter who they are, has a set of core beliefs that guide them in their lives. You might say these beliefs define them, as they are the guiding principles each person relies upon to make decisions in their daily lives. These beliefs are either founded upon things that they have learned, or by things that they have experienced over the course of their lives.

Although one person’s core beliefs may resemble those of another, each of us have led entirely different lives and therefore although our core beliefs may be similar, in reality they are distinctly our own. In that way they are similar to the DNA that identifies us as individuals. Although there may be many people who resemble each other, by checking their DNA you would see that each person is a distinctly separate and unique individual.

Most of my commentaries have been about politics or issues that concern me. This will be different, this is entirely about me; about what I believe and why. I hope it goes a long way in explaining why I make the choices I do in life, and why I feel the way I do about the current state of our nation.

When I came in to this world things were much simpler, families were more tight knit entities than they are today, and the parents, and schools for that matter, raised up responsible young adults. Both the parents, and the schools, taught children honesty, integrity, and the value of a good work ethic. That simply isn’t so today and it is one of the main reasons why we either vote for candidates who, from the outset, show no inclination to support the traditional American values, or why we tolerate it when they do things that go against those values.

I was born in the late 1950′s when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, and I was five years old when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. I lived through the 60′s counterculture and the Viet Nam war and saw what these things did to our countries belief systems. And since then I have watched as our country went from the greatest economy and world power in the world to what it is today. It truly saddens me as I know that unless we return to the values that were instilled into me as a child, this country has no chance at ever again regaining its former glory.

At the root of all I believe in is the concept that each of us are completely, and independently responsible for our lives, our actions, our decisions, and the outcome of those decisions. If I don’t apply myself, if I make a bad choice, then I alone am responsible for what happens due to those choices. I have absolutely no right to place the blame upon anyone else, or upon society in general.

I believe that the purpose of government is limited to those specific powers granted it by the Constitution, and that it is not to find people jobs, take care of them if they fall on hard times, provide them with health insurance, or to start endless wars because it believes that some other country may pose a possible future threat to American ‘interests.’

The Preamble to the Constitution states the purpose for which it was established and declares, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

People today do not understand this, they believe the sole purpose of their government is to ‘provide’ for the general welfare, when in truth the preamble states that it is merely to ‘promote’ the general welfare. At the same time people forget that government was established to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty to the people.

How is it justice when the government may take of the fruits of your labor and give it to someone else? In 1850 Frederic Bastiat wrote a treatise entitled The Law, from which I quote, “We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force. When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.”

Can I knock on your door at gunpoint and demand that you give me money so that I can give it to your neighbor who needs it more than you? Can I demand that you purchase things that you feel you do not need? Yet that is exactly what the government does. They demand you pay taxes and then use that money to pay for programs some people do not agree with. They take your tax dollars and give them to those in need, and not only that, they send your money in the millions to other countries in the form of foreign aid. How is this justice?

Some people say I am too judgmental, or that I am too insensitive to others. I’m not, I just believe that each individual is responsible for their own lives. I cannot ask that you accept the burden for my choices, nor can you expect me to accept responsibility for yours.

I don’t care what you do with your life…honestly. I care nothing about skin color, gender, or even sexual preference as far as that goes. What people do with their own lives is their business, not mine. I do however place great value upon honesty, integrity, and a good work ethic. At the same time I cannot abide a liar, a thief, someone who is lazy and expects something for nothing, and above all I cannot stand hypocrisy. At the same time whatever lifestyle choices you make you cannot demand that I accept them as normal or even for me to tolerate them. As long as I don’t interfere with you in your life I can be as free to voice my thoughts against the choices you make in your life. That is the freedom of the First Amendment, the right to say what is on one’s mind.

I don’t know whether it is something in my genes, or if it was something I was taught early on in life, but I have never been one to accept things at face value. Trust no one could very well be my life’s motto, but it has guided me well through life as I have always sought the truth regarding almost everything I am told. Unfortunately everywhere I look I see nothing but lies and propaganda designed to keep us fat dumb and happy, completely oblivious as to how bad things truly are in this country. You can take just about any issue that divides the people of this country and if you were to examine the facts you would find that hardly anyone is telling you the truth about it. Yet most people base all their decisions and beliefs upon this web of lies that is being fed them.

We the people of this country have become fragmented over so many little issues, while the big picture eludes us, that we hardly seem able to agree on anything anymore. Don’t get me wrong, many of these issues are of great importance, but it is just that we are being bombarded with all these side issues while our government continues to deprive us of our rights and our liberty.

But nowhere is this fragmentation more apparent than when it comes to immigration. Prior to the ratification of our Constitution James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote a series of articles in an attempt to drive up support for this new form of government. These articles became known as the Federalist Papers. In Federalist #2 John Jay wrote, “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

Can you honestly say that now about America? Can you say that we are a nation of people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, and attached to the same principles of government? Can you? You go to almost any public place and if you were to simply close your eyes you could almost imagine yourself inside the General Assembly of the United Nations, not a shopping store or mall in the United States.

I have no qualms with anyone who wants to come to this country and partake of the many opportunities it has to offer…none whatsoever. My wife is an immigrant having been born in the Philippines. Yet I do have a problem with those who come to this country illegally, or those who come to this country with their hands extended seeking that the working people of this country provide for their sustenance. I have problems with those who refuse to learn the language of this country, or those who demand that we tolerate their customs and beliefs while they denigrate or insult ours. Listen, nobody forced you to come here, you came of your own volition. If you cannot obey our lives, adhere to our customs, then you can go back to wherever it is that you came from.

In a 1915 speech to newly sworn in American citizens President Woodrow Wilson said the following, “I certainly would not be the one to even suggest that a man cease to love the home of his birth and the nation of his origin. These things are very sacred and ought not to be put out of our hearts. But it is one thing to love the place where you were born, and it is another to dedicate yourself to the place to which you go. You cannot dedicate yourself to America unless you become in every respect and with every purpose of your will thoroughly Americans. You cannot become thoroughly Americans if you think of yourself in groups. A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American, and a man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is not worthy to live under the stars and stripes.”

Unfortunately that is not what is happening as new immigrants continue to flood into this country with absolutely no intention of adhering to American values. In his book the Marketing of Evil, David Kupelian says, “The great melting pot–e pluribus unum–depended on an ideal. But the melting pot has become corrupted without this guiding spirit. Millions now residing here are not loyal to American values. Rather than unified and color–blind, the nation is divided and segregated. On top of everything else, America literally has been invaded, and we are at war.”

We have this group in America who is pushing this agenda that instead of America being the land of opportunity, it is the land where everyone is entitled to things. This utopian belief is ruining America. People think that they are entitled to a job, but they don’t have to work once they get it. They believe that they deserve a house, even though they can’t afford the mortgage, and expect the government to subsidize them when they default. The list goes on and on and on of the things people want their government to do from them. Yet my list is short and to the point, I want my government to stay out of my life.

Getting back to Frederic Bastiat’s The Law for a moment, he also said that “Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice.”

Over the past decade or so we have seen untold numbers of shootings occur when someone takes a firearm into a public place and then proceeds to kill innocent people, and most often themselves. Due to these massacres there has been a huge public outcry for stricter gun control laws. Have the people who clamor for stricter gun laws ever stopped to wonder why these shootings are occurring? A gun simply does not pick itself up and start killing people, a person has to pick it up. Why then are more and more people doing this? Now I’m not placing judgment, but could it be because of the decline in morals in society? Could it be because the video games our kids play are filled with random violence? Could it be because we pump our kids full of mind altering drugs so that they conform to what we want them to be in school? Could it be because the film industry produces films full of gun toting heroes who kill anyone who stands in their way?

And while I’m on the subject of Hollywood, as I previously stated, one of the things I cannot abide is hypocrisy. Yet these ass clowns in Hollywood are the worst when it comes to hypocrisy. Take Harvey Weinstein for instance. Most people probably don’t have any idea who he is, yet it was he who gave us films like Pulp Fiction, Django Unchained, Sin City, and Rambo 4, all films full of gun toting heroes. Yet he is well known for his anti-gun stance. And then there is the hero of his film Rambo 4, Sylvester Stallone who said, “Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what your gonna have. It’s pathetic. It’s really pathetic.” If you folks in Hollywood are so anti gun why do you continue to make films that glorify gun toting people? If you hate guns so much why don’t you make nature films?

If law is nothing more than the organized right of self-defense than how can law deprive me of the individual right of self-defense? Yet now, where someone to break into my home, and I were to shoot them, I, and not the intruder, am more than likely to go to prison. How is that justice?

No one, absolutely NO ONE has the right to tell me when and how I choose to defend myself, my family, or my belongings. Not you, not some group, and definitely not my government whose job it was to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty to the people. So sorry, you break into my house, you’re gonna die…you’ve been given fair warning.

I know that may go against what you believe in, but it is my belief as well as that of the men who founded this nation. Thomas Jefferson drew much of his inspiration from a man named John Locke who wrote a Treatise on Civil Governments. From his Second Treatise I quote, “Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of Nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power not only to preserve his property – that is, his life, liberty, and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men, but to judge of and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it.”

Natural law is the origin of our unalienable rights, and under natural law a man is entitled to defend, even unto death, his life, his family, and his belongings. So if you don’t like it that is your choice, go through life hoping for others to protect you should the time come, but I accept that responsibility myself and will not tolerate anyone telling me I don’t have that right.

It does not matter that you believe I should surrender that right, it does not matter if the government passes a law saying I cannot defend myself. Former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once said, “When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen’s constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all.”

But these, and all the other things our government currently does, are commonly accepted as being part of the job of government…to protect us from ourselves, and from anyone they declare to be a threat to our national interests. We have gone to war in two countries who never attacked the United States. We have trampled upon our rights due to the war on terror, all because this is what people want and expect from their government.

Not me, this is not what I believe is the purpose for our government, and it is not what I want to see continue or expand in this country. But I fear that Thomas Paine was right when he said, “…a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom…”

So, unless more people in this country start sharing the same core beliefs as I do, nothing in this country is going to change. As long as more people want things from their government instead of relying upon themselves to obtain them, nothing is going to change. As long as people continue to believe the lies they are being told by the media and their elected representatives, nothing is going to change.

In 1866 the Supreme Court ruled, “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”

Also, in Scott v Sandford, the Court ruled, “This difference arises, as we have said, from the peculiar character of the Government of the United States. For although it is sovereign and supreme in its appropriate sphere of action, yet it does not possess all the powers which usually belong to the sovereignty of a nation. Certain specified powers, enumerated in the Constitution, have been conferred upon it, and neither the legislative, executive, nor judicial departments of the Government can lawfully exercise any authority beyond the limits marked out by the Constitution.”

So please America, stop acting like a bunch of irresponsible little children. Start acting like real Americans who rely upon their own abilities to provide for themselves. Stop demanding that others give up their rights due to the actions of a few. In short, live and let live. Because if you don’t, the America that we once knew will be gone forever and what replaces it is something I do not wish to consider, and is not some place I will wish to live. And quite honestly, you probably wouldn’t either. So please, wake the hell up!

Awhile back someone at work was telling me how they, not only read all my articles, but they save them and take them to their father to read as well. But he also said something that has been bugging me for quite some time. He said that he agreed with everything I say, but asked what do we do about it. I really didn’t have an answer and the question has been bugging me ever since.

Then yesterday I took my wife to the local shopping mall to look around. While she was shopping I got a cup of coffee and sat down on one of the benches. As it often happens, there were some tables set up with people promoting their products or organizations. Sitting opposite from each other were two tables, one was for a local Scouting organization, and the other was signing up young kids for local athletic programs.

My wife takes quite awhile to shop so I had ample time to sit there and watch the people. In the time I sat there I was the only person to go look, and talk to, the Scouting representative. But, there was a steady stream of parents and kids lined up to sign up for football and baseball.

It was as I was sitting there that the idea for this article came to me. I’ve sort of known it all along, but it was as I was sitting there that I realized that most people don’t want to know about things that may be of some use in their lives. Think about it, Scouting teaches kids life skills, a certain code of ethics, or morals, and it develops honesty and integrity. Now I’m not saying athletics are completely useless, but they become the entire focus of your life you have a problem. I know plenty of people who can recite football data going back decades, but they couldn’t tell me who the current Vice President is, or who is our current Secretary of State.

Most Americans don’t have the faintest idea as to how their government was supposed to function, and what purpose it was supposed to serve. They foolishly believe that we are stuck with either Republicans or Democrats and that we have to accept, and live with, the laws they enact on our behalf.

I hate to say it, but these people are stupid. Yes, STUPID! According to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, stupid is defined as not intelligent: having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things: not sensible or logical. You tell me, and be honest, is knowing decades of football stats more important than knowing the principles upon which our nation was founded? Is it more important to care more about Union politics in your place of employment than it is to know about the actions being taken by your state and federal government?

Now it may not be out and out stupidity, but it damn sure is willful ignorance. English comedian and actor Stephen Fry once wrote “There are young men and women up and down the land who happily (or unhappily) tell anyone who will listen that they don’t have an academic turn of mind, or that they aren’t lucky enough to have been blessed with a good memory, and yet can recite hundreds of pop lyrics and reel off any amount of information about footballers. Why? Because they are interested in those things. They are curious. If you are hungry for food, you are prepared to hunt high and low for it. If you are hungry for information it is the same. Information is all around us, now more than ever before in human history. You barely have to stir or incommode yourself to find things out. The only reason people do not know much is because they do not care to know.”

It’s that simple, people simply don’t care enough to take the time to educate themselves. I don’t know whether it is because their lives are so busy that they feel they need some time to relax away from anything that may be as stressful as reading about unconstitutional laws, or if it is because they know that if they were to educate themselves they would then be responsible for making informed decisions about who they vote for and for keeping those in office accountable to their oath to support the Constitution. Whatever the case may be there are far more ignorant people running around in this country than there are informed people, and because of that fact the majority continues to vote for the same old lying sack of shit career politicians who have sold their souls, and their constituents down the drain for a chance to sit in the halls of power. Tell me that isn’t so. How else do you explain the continued re-election of people like Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, and John McCain?

Did you know that in 1816 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, “The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” (Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee 14 U.S. 304)

So there is no excuse for you to not understand the purpose for which our government was established. It’s only because you choose not to that you don’t, and that is why you continue to believe in the two party paradigm of Republican versus Democrat.

You know, when the Tea Party movement first got started I was a fervent supporter of it. Then I watched as it was infiltrated, and hijacked by supposed conservatives in the GOP. People like Sarah Palin began giving speeches at Tea Party events and I thought to myself, “What the hell is SHE doing at a Tea Party event?”

I mean, didn’t she run as John McCain’s choice for Vice President? Didn’t she align herself with the platform of the Republican Party? You have GOT to stop believing in the two political parties as the sad truth is that neither of them have any interest in adhering to the limits imposed upon government by the Constitution. Sure, one or the other may more closely align with your own personal beliefs, but neither give a damn about the limits the Constitution imposes upon our government, and more importantly, both are equally guilty of trampling all over your rights!

Did you know that back in 1912, after serving as President, Theodore Roosevelt said, “Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests, which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”

Since then this ‘invisible government’ if you wish to call it that, has grown even stronger. No longer do we get to choose from candidates who will support the Constitution, but instead candidates from both parties are carefully vetted to ensure they strictly adhere to their respective party’s platform, while both parties serve these corrupt businesses and moneyed interests who really control things in this nation.

Sure the occasional loose cannon slips through; the Ron Paul’s the Dennis Kucinich’s but for the most part each and every candidate who makes it to the stage is carefully chosen to give us the illusion of choice between differing ideologies, but in truth they are all just puppets who are controlled by the moneyed interests who only care about increasing their own wealth, and enlarging their power over the people who they consider to be nothing but serfs to serve their selfish needs.

You may say that your government is, in fact, enacting laws that the people ask for, but does that make what they do right? In his Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story writes, “No man in a republican government can doubt, that the will of the people is, and ought to be, supreme. But it is the deliberate will of the people, evinced by their solemn acts, and not the momentary ebullitions of those, who act for the majority, for a day, or a month, or a year. The constitution is the will, the deliberate will of the people. They have declared under what circumstances, and in what manner it shall be amended and altered; and until a change is effected in the manner prescribed, it is declared, that it shall be the supreme law of the land, to which all persons, rulers, as well as citizens, must bow in obedience.”

I simply don’t get it. Why would anyone assume that an entity, created by the people of this country, have an unlimited grant of power and authority to enact whatsoever laws they deem to be in the best interests of the country? Why would these same people assume that, without the people understanding the purpose for which this entity was created, that it would refrain from enacting laws which were beyond the scope of any limitations imposed upon it?

It has been said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Can anyone honestly think that just because this is America that the people they elect cannot become corrupted and seek to exercise powers beyond those granted them by the people? Do people truly think that if their government wished to enslave them, or do them harm, that it would hold a press conference and tell them so?

If we leave the government to decide for itself the extent of the powers it may exercise that is akin to letting the fox guard the henhouse, there is simply no limit to what powers it may assume, and what laws it may enact. It is our duty as citizens to understand the document which created our government; to understand the powers we gave it; and finally, ensure that it does not overstep those powers.

In George Washington’s first Inaugural Address he stated, “The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

I’m here to tell you, from my vantage point, that experiment has failed, and failed miserably. In his book The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan writes, “If we can’t think for ourselves, if we’re unwilling to question authority, then we’re just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us.”

If we truly wish to restore this country, we have to be willing to face the fact that we have been wrong in simply voting for the lesser of two evils, or blindly voting for candidates from either of the two mainstream political parties. Author Leo Tolstoy once said, “Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking.”

So what we are truly fighting here in America is not so much an out of control government. If it were that simple the people, if they were educated and informed, would simply vote for people who honored their oath to support and defend the Constitution. No, what we are fighting is the greed, the selfishness, and the abject stupidity of an overwhelming number of Americans who refuse to vote for, or demand that their elected representatives strictly adhere to the limits imposed upon them by the Constitution. It’s that simple, and yet it is that complicated as well.

Irish philosopher Edmund Burke once said that “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” So when I speak out against the actions of my/our government I am only doing so because the things I see them do go against what I understand to be their function and purpose as outlined in the Constitution.

So, as Joseph Story also said in his Commentaries on the Constitution, “It is a popular government. Those, who administer it, are responsible to the people…It is created for one purpose; the state governments for another. It may be altered, and amended and abolished at the will of the people. In short, it was made by the people, made for the people, and is responsible to the people.” So if it be a government that no longer adheres to the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution, then the fault lies with the people for allowing it.

In closing I’d like to leave you with a quote from Confederate President Jefferson Davis, which reflects how I feel pretty much to a T, “I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.” Those who submit to such consequence without resistance are not worthy the liberties and rights to which they were born, and deserve to be made slaves. Such must be the verdict of mankind.”

But unfortunately that can’t be done, so I’ll continue to scribble out these little missives from time to time, hoping against all odds that people will wake up before they find themselves truly enslaved to a beast of their own creation. But don’t ask me to show you any mercy or consideration for your ignorance and your stupidity.

I fully realize that on a good day maybe one hundred people might read these little commentaries I write, and if a thousand did it would be something to celebrate. So when you take into consideration that there are over 300 million people living in this country, I don’t have any illusion that what I am saying is going to make any difference. So, why do I continue? I continue because the things I write about are the things that I feel very strongly about, and the principles I discuss are those which I hold dear. Therefore being the stubborn pig-headed individual that I am, it does not matter whether I am fighting a losing battle, I simply refuse to just toss in the towel and stop fighting for the things I believe in.

For the most part, the people that inhabit this country, no matter what they say, have forsaken the principles that guided our Founders when they established our Republic. Their loyalty now lies with the political party which most closely aligns with what they believe to be the purpose they’d like their government to serve. The principle of unbridled liberty no longer matters to most anymore.

Did you know that prior to our nations battle for its independence that Thomas Jefferson said, “Our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty.” The very same should still apply towards our government today. Instead of seeking candidates who will best provide the things we think we deserve we should seek out candidates who will best preserve our rights and our liberty. Unfortunately far too many people today simply don’t understand the origin of their rights, and the meaning of liberty.

How many times have you heard someone spout off saying that they know their rights? Whenever I hear that I want to scream out, “Do you?” Often times these same people who claim that they are defending their rights are in reality trampling upon the rights of others. Your rights extend no further than to yourself. You cannot justify that you impose your beliefs upon others, or demand that they surrender any of their rights so that you may feel a bit safer and more secure.

That is the very nature of rights, they belong to each and every person in equal measure and liberty is nothing more than the ability to freely exercise all of your rights as long as your actions do not prohibit others from enjoying the same freedom. In 1791 Thomas Paine wrote a booklet entitled The Rights of Man, wherein he said, “Every generation is equal in rights to generations which preceded it, by the same rule that every individual is born equal in rights with his contemporary.” Therefore, if someone two hundred years ago possessed a right to do a thing than no one today has the authority to pass, or demand that legislation be passed, criminalizing what was once the lawful exercise of a right.

Whenever you hear someone discuss rights it is always preceded by the word civil, as in civil rights. But what are civil rights? Civil rights are those rights which you possess being a member of a civil society. But where do they come from, are they granted to you by the other members of society, or by government?

Going back to Thomas Paine’s booklet we find the following, “Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural rights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and to show how the one originates from the other. Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights.”

If our civil rights are therefore based upon our natural rights, then what are our natural rights? Natural rights are those which are man’s according to his existing in a state of nature, they are not dependent upon any law, custom, or beliefs, AND they are unalienable. In the 17th Century, English philosopher John Locke defined them as life, liberty, and estate, or property.

Basically, natural rights are those rights which man would be free to exercise were he in a state of nature. In such a state a man would be free to hunt or forage for his sustenance, to build a home to shelter himself, and more importantly, to defend his property and his rights against attack by others. But since not all men respect the rights of an individual man formed societies, civil compacts, with governments established to guarantee and protect these rights.

That is the basis for which OUR government was established, as stated in both our Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” and our Constitution, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution….”

Yet when one speaks of such things today they are looked upon with scorn by others, considered a threat to their security and the well being of the nation. But as John Adams so perfectly stated, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

If someone were to tell you that they intended to steal, or destroy, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, they would be met with almost universal outrage by the people. Why do people have so much reverence for two parchment documents in display cases, and not have the same reverence for the principles written upon them?

The fact of the matter is that I can’t count but a handful of people who understand the principle of liberty…I mean real liberty. Real liberty is the ability to manage your own affairs without anyone telling you how, as long as in your doing so you don’t restrict anyone else from doing the same.

An example. Say I park my pickup truck in front of your driveway. I have now prohibited you from parking your vehicle in your driveway and have restricted your liberty to freely access any part of your property. But, as long as I do not block access to your property you should not have the right to tell me that I cannot park one, two, three vehicles in front of my house. Hell, if I wanted to I should be able to park an M1 Abrams Battle Tank in front of my house and nobody should be able to tell me otherwise. I’m not hurting anyone by doing so, and as long as the road can handle the weight I should be allowed to do so. Sure I don’t NEED one, but neither do half these ass clowns who buy those fancy 4 Wheel Drive trucks which they never take off road. If I can’t prove that I have a need for a tank then anyone who buys a 4 wheel drive vehicle should prove that they have a need for it as well. That my friends is the difference between liberty and governmental interference in our affairs. Some busy body with a severe case of insecurity or fear decides that someone has something, or is doing something that they don’t like, and they get the government to restrict that person from doing that thing.

It is the same with money as well. I am free to go about earning a living and if by my efforts I accumulate a great deal of wealth then no one has the right to say that I have earned too much and a portion of it should be taken to be given to those who haven’t earned enough to survive. If I decide to donate to charity, then that is my choice. But government mandated charity is theft, plain and simple. Or, as Frederic Bastiat said, “Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property. But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.” Call it theft or plunder, it is against the beliefs, or ideals, espoused by the men who wrote those documents that so many revere, without knowing the first thing about what they contain.

So when you tell me that my ideas, my beliefs go against what this country stands for, you had better rethink your position. It is not I who am an enemy to my country, it is you with your misguided beliefs about what America stands for. It is YOU who have declared war upon the principles contained in our founding documents, not I.

There is something else Frederic Bastiat said that you really need to think about. He also declared that “Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property… 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.”

You see, we have a right to defend our liberty against any and all who would limit it…and that includes defending it against external enemies and domestic ones. That means against you or our own government when it no longer serves the purpose for which it was established. That principle is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

You see, Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was a well read man, having studied the great thinkers and philosophers of ages past. In The Mind of Jefferson, Stuart G. Brown wrote that in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Jefferson regarded three men to be the “…trinity of the world’s greatest men…” These men being Lord Francis Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, and the English political philosopher John Locke.

Although Locke was not a Founding Father, it was upon his writings in his Treatise on Civil Government that Jefferson drew many of his beliefs. Locke is not taught in our schools, unless possibly you take a college course which covers his writings. So therefore the average person has no idea what Locke wrote about, or what ideas he believed in. So allow me to share just a sampling of what Locke believed in.
As I have spoken previously of, our civil rights are based upon our natural rights. In Section 18 of Locke’s Treatise, he says, “This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else…”

In his treatise The Law, Bastiat declares that “Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice.” Therefore, if the law is turned on its head and opposes the purpose for which it was established, those who enforce the law become criminals and may be opposed using any methods necessary to preserve your liberty. These were the beliefs held by our Founders, and they are the beliefs that have been abandoned by society today.

In a letter to the Boston Gazette in 1763 John Adams wrote, “Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would.”

Years later, in his Letters from the Federal Farmer, Richard Henry Lee would write, “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” That certainly sounds to me like Mr. Lee felt that it was our right to rise up and use force against any who would attempt to take away our liberty.

These beliefs are nothing new. Thousands of years ago Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote, “There exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”

But, as Samuel Adams wrote in 1775, “No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.”

Frederick Douglass, the great orator and abolitionist, once said, “Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” Although he was primarily speaking of slavery, the principle can be applied to any who are oppressed, including those oppressed by their own government.

So, tell me again who is the enemy to their country, to the beliefs it was founded upon? I suppose Orwell was right though when he said, “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

But don’t you dare tell me that I hate my country, or that I am an enemy to all that America stands for. As H.L. Mencken once said, “The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.” I only defend all that I hold dear.