Neal's Soapbox

Thomas Hobbes, a 16th-17th century jurist and philosopher, believed that self preservation was among the laws of Nature; meaning that it was inherent in all sentient beings; from animals all the way up to humans. Self-preservation is what causes a rattlesnake to strike at you if it feels threatened; using whatever gifts nature itself has given it for its own defense. Self-preservation is also what causes a predatory animal to stalk, and then kill another animal for its sustenance; for without the means to feed itself that predator would starve to death.

As man is the most evolved of all nature’s beings, (although I sometimes question that when I see how people act towards each other), man has developed more sophisticated means of defending himself from others; means which also have been utilized to subjugate or eradicate those they wished to conquer; i.e. war and genocide.

Yet the fundamental laws of nature still apply, even though an individual, or group of individuals may find themselves vastly outnumbered and out gunned; a person, no matter how outnumbered or out gunned, still retains the right to do whatever it takes to defend themselves.

If you were to think about it, the Laws of Nature must come from whoever created nature. So, if you believe in God, then the Laws of Nature must come from God Himself. Although he didn’t mention Him by name, in the Declaration of Independence Jefferson stated that our rights come from our Creator and that government exists to secure or protect those rights.

In his book The Rights of Man, published in 1791, Thomas Paine wrote, “If any generation of men ever possessed the right of dictating the mode by which the world should be governed for ever, it was the first generation that existed; and if that generation did it not, no succeeding generation can show any authority for doing it, nor can set any up. The illuminating and divine principle of the equal rights of man (for it has its origin from the Maker of man) relates, not only to the living individuals, but to generations of men succeeding each other. 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.”

Later, Paine goes on to say, “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.”

I suppose the best way of explaining the difference between natural rights and civil rights would be to say that natural rights are those given us by our Creator and civil rights are those which are understood by man, and codified into law; given certain protections…such as the Bill of Rights.

Government is not a divine creation; it is something that was created by man to serve certain purposes. Government can exist only by two means; either by consent of the government or by the threat of force imposed upon those governed by government. One grants liberty to those who are governed by it and the other deprives those governed of their liberty. As Paine would later say in the Rights of Man, “All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.”

If all power is delegated, then there must be some written law which limits the power of those who govern over the rights of those being governed. In America this law is known as the Constitution, and Bill of Rights; ten amendments further restricting the power of our federal government to violate certain rights.

I have been quoting a lot of Paine, but now I would like to shift gears and begin quoting from John Locke and his Second Treatise on Civil Government.

Where does government derive its authority? Well, Jefferson said it derives its authority by our consent to it; but that is only part of the answer, for it leaves out the fact that we are the true sovereigns in our system; those will all the political power. As Locke states in his Second Treatise, Chapter 2, “To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.”

Yet this law of nature that Locke speaks of is not limitless; we are not free to violate the rights of those around us. You see, Locke goes on to say, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions…”

You see, our Constitution has this little thing called a Preamble; a statement of intent if you will, which explains the intent of the document that follows. The Preamble states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (My emphasis)

Locke, and many of our Founders, believed that Natural Law grants us the authority to defend ourselves and our property; but what is property? Is it the land we live on; the things we purchase; or is it something intangible; something we inherently understand but cannot put our fingers upon it?

Well, aside from other things he said and did, James Madison did a halfway decent job of explaining what property is when he wrote the following in 1792, “This term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.”

Our rights, or our liberty if you prefer, are as much our property as are our homes, the clothes upon our backs, or the money in our wallets; they are ours and no one is entitled to take them from us without our consent.

In 1772 Samuel Adams wrote a Report to the Committee of Correspondence, which was delivered to the Boston Town Meeting on November 20th of that same year. In his report Adams writes, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”

Not only does Adams explain what our Natural Rights consist of, he also says that it is our right to defend them “…in the best manner they can…” This concept of self-defence; including the right of defending one’s liberty, can be traced back to Locke’s Second Treatise, where in Chapter 3 Locke wrote, “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. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.”

I think that is a fundamental principle that far too many in this country have forgotten; that those who break the law, and in so doing violate the rights of another, are the aggressors; and those whose rights are being violated have the right to defend whatever is theirs, by whatever means they can; without fear of prosecution. For if the law truly exists to provide justice and secure liberty, then why punish those who are only defending what is rightfully theirs?

After all, does not the Constitution itself give government the authority “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” (Article 1, Section 8)

If we, as the creators of government, are the true sovereigns, with all the rightful political authority, then how can we say that an entity which we created, with the purpose of protecting our liberty, can turn around and tell us when, where, and by what means we can defend ourselves, our property or our liberty? How can they pass laws which punish us for defending what is ours, yet we have no laws to punish them when they violate the law our ancestors wrote to restrict their actions?

Getting back to Paine for a moment, in his pamphlet Common Sense he wrote, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”

I don’t care who you vote for; honestly I don’t. You can vote for either a Republican or a Democrat for all I care. You can vote for a man or a woman; a white man or a black man for all I care; none of that matters to me. What matters is whether the person you vote for is going to uphold their oath to support and defend the Constitution; which means leaving my rights and my liberty alone!

It seems like every law that is passed today requires the surrender of one of our Natural Rights for it to have any teeth. Take for instance this abomination of a health care law passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama; it requires that those making a great deal of money pay a higher premium for health care coverage so as to subsidize those making less money. Is that not depriving a person of their property, (their income) without their consent?

What about all the gun laws that have been passed to keep us safe; do they not deprive all the law abiding gun owners of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms, and use them in our defense?

What about those of you who say that people like me are radicals, and threats to society, because we believe we have the right to rise up against a government that deprives us of the liberty it was established to protect?

When Paine said that government is a necessary evil, he meant that government in its most limited scope is an evil we must put up with to maintain some semblance of order in society; either a society of individuals or a society consisting of sovereign states in some form of a union. That government was a necessary evil is something that was understood by even the most ardent lovers of liberty. It is when government oversteps it’s just authority and begins depriving the governed of their rights that they took offense to government, and rose up against it.

How many of you reading this have even felt an increase in your blood pressure at the repeated violations upon your rights? How many of you have sought to learn what your rights are, or the extent to which they have been taken from you? How many of you don’t care about your rights; caring only whether your party gets to be in control of government?

Our country did not become a free and independent country because our Founders voted it into being; it became free and independent when they defended their liberty at the risk of their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

I hear all this garbage about supporting Trump; supporting the troops; or supporting law enforcement. Wouldn’t it be unique if people started giving a damn about supporting the Constitution?

The other day my friend Michael Gaddy posed an interesting question; one which I would now ask those who are always saying we must support law enforcement, “If it was “constitution enforcement” instead of “law enforcement” who would be charged with crimes, go on trial and then to prison?”

If that causes you to wonder whether those you voted for would go to prison or not, then you are not voting to support the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the very liberty our government was established to secure…and that makes you just as much a part of the problem as are those you vote for.

Liberty does not come cheap; it comes with the cost of eternal vigilance and a willingness to die in its defense. But the alternative is tyranny and servitude; be it tyranny by usurpation or by consent of the majority, (democracy). And to quote the immortal words of Patrick Henry, “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

I don’t care whether we have just been blinded by corrupt politicians and scam artists; whether the Freemasons are to blame for subverting our government; or if it was the Illuminati behind the Deep State; the root cause of our problems is that our elected people do not support and defend the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The reason they don’t support it is because YOU don’t demand they support it.

As I said, our Founders did not vote themselves into independence, they told their government to take a friggin’ hike and then they picked up their guns and backed up their words with their lives. If you really want America to be great again, that’s what it’s gonna take to do it; everything else will only be half measures and a repetition of the same errors which got us here in the first place.

America never was, nor will it ever be great due to its system of government. America was, and can only become great again when the people of this country place liberty above all other concerns, and are ready to risk their lives to secure and defend it.

If you truly think you can vote liberty back, then Lysander Spooner was talking to YOU when he said, “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”

As Judge Learned Hand said in 1944, “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.” Either you love liberty, or you love government; you can’t serve two masters. Which do you serve?

With increasing frequency I am finding it harder to sit behind this keyboard and scribble out these articles for people to read. It is not that there is a lack of things for me to write about; it is rather that I am coming to realize that whatever I say is not going to change the way people think.
I sometimes wonder if there is some kind of mass psychosis going on in America with this division between Republicans and Democrats; and anyone who attempts to shine a light on the truth is attacked and denounced by both sides for disrupting the status quo. I have also been wondering what it is about me, and people like me, that sets us apart so that we are not affected by this psychosis.

If you want my honest opinion I think there are 3 categories of people in this country. There are those to whom knowledge and the truth means everything. There are those who are content with whatever they think they know. And finally, there are those who don’t care one way or the other about knowledge or the truth.

I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I believe that I am among that small percentage of people to whom the acquisition of knowledge is a driving force in their life. Now I’m not saying I’m the brightest person, or the most knowledgeable; what I am saying is that I have made a conscious decision to expand my knowledge regarding the history of this country, how its system of government came into existence, and what purpose it was intended to serve by those who established it.

It is amazing what just a little bit of knowledge, a small dose of the truth, can do to a person’s perspective. Twenty years ago I was a staunch Republican and voted according to whoever ran for office with an (R) next to their name on the ballot. Now I rarely vote in national elections; confining my vote to local issues and candidates.

People tell me I’m wasting my vote, or allowing the enemy to win when I don’t vote for candidates like Trump. I say that the enemy is not the Republicans or the Democrats, the enemy is a government that no longer adheres to the limits the document that created government imposes upon them; that it does not matter who occupies the seats of power within government because government itself has become a monster that devours the freedom it was established to protect.

I’m sure I could find it if I searched, but off the top of my head I can’t recall the exact quote, or who said it, but during the debate over whether to ratify or reject the Constitution someone said something along the lines of, “Our country is too expansive to be governed effectively by a strong central government without that government becoming tyrannical.”

It was felt, back then, that for liberty to prevail the most effective form of government would be a Republic; a group of united entities under a centralized government which was established for certain limited and defined purposes with the remaining power to govern the lives of the people reserved to the States wherein they lived.

The limited scope and power of the federal government was so that it did not directly touch upon, or benefit the people directly. Rather the central government was to primarily affect the States as if they were individuals; meaning it was to pass laws to ensure that one State did not do something that affected the liberty and sovereignty of the other States.

I hear all these ideas regarding how we can fix all that is wrong in America and sometimes I just sit here shaking my head in disbelief at them. I have also been asked, from time to time, what I would suggest we do to fix all that is wrong in America. To tell you the truth, I don’t think America can be fixed; but if it could, two things would need to take place.

First, and foremost, the people of this country must come together as one and stop asking government to do things for them. If America ever hopes to fix itself then the people which comprise America must place liberty first and foremost on their list of priorities and stop asking government to pass laws that are designed to somehow help them in life. A free man does not need government for anything; they succeed or fail based upon their own merit and accept whatever hand life deals them without asking for any assistance from their government.

That alone, in my opinion, precludes any hope of ever fixing what is wrong in this country. If I were to ask you whether you would accept a proposal to abolish Social Security, how would you respond? Most would probably laugh at me; saying they are entitled to it; having paid into if all their lives. Well, what if it was abolished and you were allowed to keep that money and invest it as you saw fit; placing the obligation of managing your years in retirement where it belongs; upon you, the individual. That is the mentality of most though, that they shouldn’t be required to take care of themselves; that should be the job of their government.

Another example; how many people think that it is the job of the government, or more specifically, the police, to protect them? A free man should not have to pick up a phone and dial 911 and wait for law enforcement to come to their rescue. A free man should accept that responsibility, and if they exercise their natural right of self-defense, they should not be prosecuted for using excessive force.

You see, most people don’t understand the concept of rights. I have a right to life, liberty, and property, and whenever anyone seeks to encroach upon, or threaten any of them I have the natural right to defend all three with whatever force I deem necessary. For as John Locke said, “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 then 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 pretense be what it will, I have no reason to purpose that he, who would take away my Liberty, would not when he had me in his Power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is Lawful for me to treat him, as one who has put himself into a State of War with me, I.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a State of War, and is Aggressor in it.”

When we tolerate laws that criminalize the defense of our lives, liberty and property, we make ourselves slaves to those who dictate when and where can defend ourselves. To pass laws which require that a portion of society be required to subsidize the existence of another is also a violation of our right to enjoy the full benefit of the fruits of our labor; i.e. or income. Thomas Jefferson expressed that belief as follows, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” (Source: Letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816)

Freedom, or liberty, is a two sided coin; you are free to do as you please as long as you don’t restrict others from doing the same. At the same time you and you alone are responsible for the consequences of your decisions and actions. People say they want freedom, but then they shun the consequences of their actions; seeking political candidates who will provide a safety net for them should they fail to achieve success or riches. That is NOT freedom that is slavery; for when you are dependent upon someone or something you are a slave to it.

And the other thing that people must do if they want to fix America is stop looking to Uncle Sam to do it for them. Uncle Sam isn’t going to do a damned thing that reduces the power they already hold over you; all you can do is put of some kind of barrier that blocks, or nullifies, their ability to exercise that power.

To do that people must stop focusing their attention on federal elections and focus all their attention upon local elections. I have heard it said that all politics is localized. I take that to mean that the closer a political unit is to those it represents the better it knows what is best for the people. Therefore a city government is more knowledgeable about the needs of its people than is the county government. The County government, on the other hand, is more knowledgeable about the needs of its people than is the State government. And the State government is far more knowledgeable about the needs of the State than is the federal government.

To express this better, my home State of California has a population of roughly 39.54 million people. There are 53 members in the House of Representatives for the State of California. That works out to one representative for every 746,037 people. How can that one person effectively represent so many people? What if one area of their Congressional District relies on tourism for its livelihood while another relies upon agriculture; how can they pass laws that ensure both are equally represented and that the rights of either aren’t violated? The simple answer is, they can’t.

It gets even worse when you discuss the Senate, with only 2 representatives regardless of the population. But then again the Senate was NEVER intended to represent the people, it was established to be the voice of the States in what laws are passed by the federal government…and that is an article unto itself.

The point is if you want to curb the influence of Uncle Sam in your State then you need to focus your attention not upon candidates to reduce the power wielded by Uncle Sam, but by focusing your attention upon candidates who will tell Uncle Sam that he has no jurisdiction in their State.

Let me ask you something. What do you think would happen if every employer in a State, any State, decided to stop withholding income taxes from the paychecks of their employees? Do you think Uncle Sam would, or could arrest all of them, or those who did not have taxes withheld from their pay? Uncle Sam derives its power by way of our consenting to it. If we simply withdrew that consent, saying I will NO LONGER COMPLY, and did it in a unified voice, there wouldn’t be a damned thing they could to about it.

What if the people, acting by the power given them as jurors, chose to stop enforcing the law by rendering innocent verdicts whenever someone was accused of violating a law the jury felt violates an individual’s rights, or oversteps the legitimate authority of their government? A person can always be re-tried if there is a mistrial, but if the jury renders an innocent verdict, then that basically nullifies the law. Imagine if jurors across the country began exercising their power to nullify federal laws they felt overstepped the legitimate powers of government. We could neuter Uncle Sam without a shot being fired.

But these steps require two things to take place; things that I don’t ever see happening. First the people must devote a serious amount of time to the studying of how our system of government came into existence, and what powers it was promised it would exercise. Not those powers people have become accustomed to it exercising, but what powers the ratification assemblies were promised it would exercise. I don’t see that ever happening.

Secondly, we must purge political party loyalty from our minds. Party loyalty is a cancer that divides us and keeps us distracted from the fact that government is overstepping its authority. It would be okay if partisan politics were confined to the national stage as long as the States were united in opposing unconstitutional laws. But partisan politics has found its way into the States and as long as that remains the case the States can never unite together on anything which threatens federal authority within their borders. As long as the parties dictate policy America will continue on its current path towards a despotic democracy; a country in which the mindless and emotionally reactive majority gets to decide how the rest of us live.
I hear a lot of people say we should hold a Constitutional Convention and propose amendments to limit federal authority, introduce a requirement for a balanced budget, and all manner of other solutions to all the problems our country faces. I see two problems with that.

First, who is to say that if such a convention were held, (with the current mindset in both the populace and government towards our rights) that the Bill of Rights might not be repealed altogether? Just look at how restrictive California and some other States are in regards to gun ownership; who’s to say that the delegates chosen by those States might not call for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment?

With all the fear of another terror attack we might also see the complete repealing of the 4th Amendment; although as it stands now it is utterly worthless in protecting us against searches and seizures without probable cause.

Secondly, even if we were to successfully limit our proposed amendments to improving government by limiting its authority, how would we enforce them upon a government that has proven time and time again that the existing restrictions mean nothing to them? Patrick Henry warned of this very danger when arguing against ratification of the original Constitution, “A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your Mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?”

I think people believe that a standing army is one consisting of regular military troops who enforce the law upon the people. But my understanding of a standing army is one that believes that any agency, be it federal or local, that enforces federal law comprises a standing army. After all, if a law is unconstitutional from the get go does it matter whether it is being enforced by United States Marines or your local cops? I think not; therefore a standing army is anyone, or anything that enforces the law upon the people. How are we to enforce the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and any amendments we might propose to limit the power of the federal government when they have an army of law enforcers on their side?

That is why knowledge is key to all this; for getting back to my comments on jury nullification, if the people knew the law; knew the limits the Constitution imposes upon government; then they could act as local nullifiers by simply refusing to see people convicted for laws that are non binding.

The 16th American Jurisprudence states, “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 it’s unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Such an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follows that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it.

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

Also, in 1969 the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held, “If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence…If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.”

Now I’m not saying that jurors should just start acquitting people simply because they don’t like the law. What I am saying is that if a law is unconstitutional then the only power the government has to enforce them are either in a court of law or at the end of a gun; which is how Abraham Lincoln enforced his vision of the law when he invaded the States of the Confederacy. But I devolve from the issue at hand.

I have come to the painful conclusion that no matter how well intentioned people might be, America simply cannot be fixed. If liberty is the primary reason for which all governments should serve to protect, then the people need to place that first and foremost on their list of priorities and stop voting for any candidate who seeks to limit it, or will not defend it to their last dying breath.

There is a saying that goes something like this, “To first fix a problem you must first recognize that there is a problem.” The problem, as I see it, is that too many people don’t want to fact the fact that the problem in America today is not a Democrat or a Republican one, it is one in which the government we have no longer serves the limited purposes for which it was established, and one in which our rights are secondary, (if even given any thought at all to) when deciding what laws it passes.

Unless that changes, then nothing else will; our goose will continue to spin on the rotisserie until it is fully cooked. And with the current discord and heated animosity between the two extremes in American politics, I feel that time is nearer at hand than many want to admit.

The following is an ongoing conversation between myself and Senator Dianne Feinstein. I hope it brings a smile to some of your faces.
On September 29th I sent Senator Feinstein the following letter:

Senator Feinstein,

Do you truly think your partisan leanings go unnoticed? I just heard you second a motion to call for an FBI investigation into allegations leveled against Brett Kavanaugh. While I do not care much for him as a choice to the SCOTUS, this is nothing but a witch hunt; a feeble attempt to dig up any dirt that could be used to block whomever Donald Trump chooses to fill a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. I truly think that had Trump nominated Mother Teresa you would have sought dirt on her in an effort to block her nomination.

What angers me even more is the blatant hypocrisy of your position. You people seek to block him because of alleged sexual misconduct, yet you supported President Clinton, even after multiple charges of sexual misconduct were leveled against him. Your hypocrisy sickens me and you are a disgrace to all that is, or at least what used to be good in this country.

Why don’t you do us all a favor and resign?

Yesterday I got the following from Senator Feinstein:

Dear Mr. Ross:

Thank you for contacting me about Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. I appreciate you writing to me on this important issue.

As with all nominations, I approached Justice Kavanaugh’s nomination with an open mind and was committed to a thorough and fair review of his record. Much of that record was obscured by Republicans who withheld millions of documents related to Justice Kavanaugh’s years in President George W. Bush’s White House. Nonetheless, it soon became clear from the limited record provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Trump fulfilled his pledge to nominate a ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-gun’ justice. If you would like to read in greater detail my assessment of Justice Kavanaugh’s judicial record, you may find it in my Op-Ed to the Los Angeles Times here: https://sen.gov/feinstein/JJRO

Justice Kavanaugh also faced credible allegations of sexual assault. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford gave powerful testimony about her experience of being physically and sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. At the direction of Senate Republicans and the White House, those allegations were not thoroughly investigated by the FBI. I am deeply troubled by the message this sends to survivors of sexual assault.

I remain concerned by Justice Kavanaugh’s visible partisanship and his aggressive and belligerent tone toward Senators during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. The American public deserves to have federal judges—especially Supreme Court Justices—for whom there is no doubt about their open mindedness and impartiality. Our justice system depends on the principle that all litigants are treated fairly and receive due process, no matter their political leanings. If you would like to read the remarks I made on the Senate floor on the eve of Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation, you may find them here: https://sen.gov/feinstein/MM7O

Ultimately, the Senate voted 50-48 to confirm Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court on October 6, 2018, and he was sworn in at a private ceremony at the Court that evening. The confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh shifts the Supreme Court far to the right, putting women’s reproductive rights, civil rights, environmental protections, worker’s rights, the ability to implement gun safety rules, and the ability to hold presidents accountable at risk for a generation.

Once again, thank you for writing. Should you have any other questions or comments, please call my Washington, D.C., office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at feinstein.senate.gov. You can also follow me online at YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, and you can sign up for my email newsletter at feinstein.senate.gov/newsletter.

Best regards.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein

Well, I suppose she thought that would suffice. But you know me, I’m not one to accept bullshit and canned responses to my queries. So I just wrote this and e mailed it to her office. Let’s see her squirm her way out of this one…

Senator Feinstein,

I received your e-mail response regarding my letter regarding the Kavanaugh nomination, written on September 29th. Although I appreciate you taking the time to respond, I am nevertheless amazed at how easily you sidestepped the salient points of my letter. Do you guys in Washington D.C. go to school to learn how to speak volumes but say absolutely nothing of importance, or is that an inherent trait; a pre-requisite for all politicians?

As I stated in my original letter to you, I do not feel that Kavanaugh was the best choice for the Supreme Court. Allow me to explain why I felt, and still feel that. For one thing Brett Kavanaugh apparently has no regard for the concept of probable cause; believing that the imminent threat of terrorism justifies the NSA’s metadata collection of confidential conversations and messages of all Americans; a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

The of course there was the young Kavanaugh, who while working in the Bush administration helped give us the Patriot Act; another piece of legislation which violates not only the 4th Amendment, but the 1rst as well due to its gag clause on the FISA Court warrants it authorizes the FBI to issue.

Those are the reasons I did not, and continue not to support Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. Yet throughout the entire nomination and confirmation process I didn’t hear you, or anyone else, (aside from Judge Andrew Napolitano and Chuck Baldwin), decry Kavanaugh’s total disregard for the 4th Amendment.

Is that how you guys in D.C. work these days; ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and seek to defame the character of those you oppose by bringing to light alleged charges of sexual misconduct from years past? I find it amazing that you would do that to someone you oppose yet turn a blind eye to the same conduct of one of your own; William Jefferson Clinton.

The sexual misconduct of Bill Clinton is the stuff legends are made of; with his leaving a trail of women behind him from the Oval Office to the Governor’s Mansion in Arkansas. Do the names Juanita Broaddrik, Kathleen Willey, Leslie Millwee, and Paula Jones ring a bell? Oh, and of course let us not forget his sworn testimony of having an affair with Gennifer Flowers and his little trysts with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office.

But I suppose those are forgivable because he is a Democrat.

Listen, you may think that I’m a Trump supporter; well, I’m not. I did not vote for him in the last election and I wouldn’t vote for him should he choose to run in 2020. What I do support is the truth; justice; the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – things you people in Washington D.C. have forsaken.

I’m not some pissant who is going to be content that someone who represents me sent me a letter in response to a letter they sent to their representative in Washington D.C. unless the salient points of that letter are fully addressed.

I know that there are close to 40 million other Californians who you also represent, but to tell you the truth most of them couldn’t even tell you how many branches of government were created by the Constitution; nor what powers each branch was to exercise.

I’m your worst nightmare; someone who has studied the founding of our country and the process by which our Constitution and Bill of Rights came into existence. I can smell bullshit a mile away, and your letter in response to my queries was utter bullshit.

And please, don’t send me a letter asking me to hold my tongue when speaking to you; from the look on your face in many of the photos I’ve seen of you, I’m sure you say far worse when you are angry…and I’m angry as hell that you try to placate me and treat me as if I’m just some insignificant serf who should feel honored that he got a reply from the almighty Dianne Feinstein.

So please; just answer my questions and then I’ll go away. Why did you fight so hard to see that Kavanaugh was NOT confirmed to the SCOTUS, yet ignore the sexual misconduct of Bill Clinton, and why did you not bring to light Kavanaugh’s total disregard for the Bill of Rights; particularly the 1rst and 4th Amendments.

Answer those questions and I’ll back off until you do something else that angers me.

P.S. You never did answer why you don’t do the country a favor and just resign.
Sincerely,
Neal Ross

If you are a Republican you say the Democrats are evil. If you are a Democrat you say the same thing about the Republicans. If you are apathetic you don’t care one way or the other about political parties or politics in general.

But know this, regardless of which of those 3 categories you fall under, the laws that government passes do affect your lives. Regardless of whether you vote Republican, Democrat, or not at all, you are taxed by your government and your rights are slowly being stripped away like the layers of an onion.

You might not care that certain rights are slowly being taken away from you, but there will come a day when government comes after some right that you do care about. What are you going to do when all of your other rights, (including the right to defend your rights), have already been taken away from you?

If you believe that one of the powers of government is the ability to limit the freedom of those you disagree with then don’t be surprised if one day that same authority is used to limit YOUR freedom.

The people of this country only pay attention to their particular cause: higher/lower taxes; the war on terror; illegal immigration; gay rights; and a whole slew of other so-called issues, while ignoring the fact that almost every right protected by the first ten amendments to the constitution have all but been eradicated.

The Preamble to the Constitution declares that one of the purposes for which our government was instituted was to secure the blessings of liberty. Liberty, simply defined, means live and let live; you leave me and my rights alone and I’ll do the same for you.

This includes, but is not limited to, the right to defend myself whenever, wherever, and however I choose; the right to be free to do and say things that others find offensive; the right to be free in my home of the prying eyes and ears of the NSA; the right to worship my God as I see fit; and the right to enjoy the fruits of my labor without it being taxed to fund unconstitutional programs.

How can you say we have a government by consent when there are those who do not consent to having their rights taken away from them, but face fines, imprisonment, and even death if they exercise those rights without the permission of their government? How can you say that there is justice in America when one segment of society is taxed to subsidize and fund the existence of another that cannot, or will not work? How can you say that there is equality in America when you are free to speak your mind, but MY speech is condemned, attacked, and censored if it does not conform to what is considered politically correct?

I have found that one of the easiest ways to get someone mad at you is to question their patriotism. Yet what is patriotism? Is it the unquestioning support of government? Is it paying your taxes on time every year? Is it supporting our military, or law enforcement?

To me, patriotism is supporting the principles which led our Founders to declare their independence from England. To me, patriotism is the defense of the unalienable rights of all men, not just a select few. To me patriotism is the undying defense of the principles this country was founded upon; not the entity we created to govern over us.

A true patriot does not need government for anything; for they understand that government was not established to be their caregiver and caretaker from the moment they are born until the moment they die. A true patriot does not freak out over the idea of resisting unconstitutional authority; and they do not unquestioningly submit to any violations of their unalienable rights. A true patriot does not seek to use government as a tool to impose their beliefs upon others.

America is full of people; over 300 million of us – but it is lacking in patriots. Patrick Henry was a patriot and he said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Thomas Jefferson was a patriot and he said, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Samuel Adams was a patriot, and he said, “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Are you a patriot, or are you a supporter and defender of those who seek to destroy the freedom America was founded upon? To all those who truly are patriots; those who love and defend liberty I offer the following toast, “To us and those like us…so damn few left.”

You can call yourself a patriot if you like, but actions speak louder than words; and so long as you support a system of government that seeks to undermine the liberty it was established to safeguard and protect, your actions speak for themselves. Go ahead, keep believing that you are patriotic if you want, but I believe that Henry, Jefferson and Adams would be inclined to disagree with your assessment.

“There is no worse form of slavery than one in which
the people participate in electing their own masters.”
~N.Ross~
(10 October 2018)

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why we need political parties in American government; or for that matter, how they came into existence and have evolved over time? I can’t speak for you but I have given it a great deal of thought.

Let’s say for a moment that you were to create an organization; write a charter describing its intended purpose and outlining the powers it was to hold. If both the purpose and the powers given to this organization were clearly outlined, why would you need any kind of partisan differences of opinions when choosing who would sit on its board of directors?

The only reason I could see for such a division of beliefs is because there are those who seek to subvert the intended purpose of that organization and turn it towards a purpose it was not intended to serve. Putting it in simpler terms; if the charter itself were the guiding principle in running your organization there would be no need for political parties. The same principle applies to government as well; if the Constitution were the sole guiding force behind our government there would be no need for political parties in America.

What political parties do is they espouse certain beliefs as to what purpose government should serve, and then the masses align themselves behind these beliefs according to whichever belief most closely fits their own personal belief; thereby abandoning the principles outlined in the charter which created the government they seek to subvert. This is true regardless of whether you call yourself a liberal or a conservative; both seek to use government to push an agenda that is contrary to the purpose for which government was established in America.

But where did these political parties come from, and how have they evolved over the years? George Washington, our first president under the newly ratified constitution, was the only president ever to be elected that did not have to run against someone from an opposing political party. He was the obvious choice for president; being the Commanding General of the army which led America to victory over the British in the Revolution.

Did you know that Washington didn’t seek election; that he was simply chosen by almost unanimous consent? In fact, the thought of serving as our country’s first president, quite frankly, scared the hell out of him; as he felt himself severely under-qualified. In his first Inaugural Address Washington stated, “Among the vicissitudes incident to life no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the 14th day of the present month.”

Similar sentiments were expressed by our 3rd president, Thomas Jefferson, once he was announced to be the winner of a contentious 1800 election cycle, “Called upon to undertake the duties of the first executive office of our country, I avail myself of the presence of that portion of my fellow-citizens which is here assembled to express my grateful thanks for the favor with which they have been pleased to look toward me, to declare a sincere consciousness that the task is above my talents, and that I approach it with those anxious and awful presentiments which the greatness of the charge and the weakness of my powers so justly inspire.” (My emphasis)

The difference between the election which saw George Washington become our 1rst President and the one which saw Thomas Jefferson become our 3rd was that with the election of Washington there wasn’t yet the divisiveness of political party, or faction. When Washington decided not to accept, or seek a 3rd term, he wrote a letter to the American people wherein he stated, “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

I could be wrong, but I believe Washington wrote that because he saw firsthand the tumult caused by factions, or parties in his own Cabinet. To understand why I say that one must go back to a time before our government was actually bestowed with any power or authority; when it was being designed by those who wrote our Constitution.

There were those among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention who sought a much stronger government than the one that was eventually created. Although their plans, or agendas were thwarted in convention, they did not abandon them entirely; they only sought to wait until the government they were in the process of creating was put into operation to subvert it to one which more closely resembled the one they felt government should be.

Chief among those who felt that government should have much more power than the Constitution granted it was Alexander Hamilton; who felt that government should be a tool that is wielded to grow America into a mighty economic and military empire. You see, Hamilton was an immigrant to this country, and as such he owed no allegiance to any State. Hamilton’s allegiance was to the country as a whole, and he felt that government should benefit the country; and if that meant demolishing State sovereignty and State authority, so be it.

Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was, first and foremost, a Virginian. His loyalty and allegiance were first to his native State, and then secondly to the Union of States. Jefferson felt that government should be kept to the bare minimum; with the States enjoying the maximum amount of authority over the lives of the people. He believed that to allow government to become a tool to foster economic growth was a radical change from the intended purpose for which that government was supposed to serve.

I have read that the Cabinet Meetings in the Washington administration were legendary in their animosity and heated debate between Hamilton and Jefferson. Unfortunately for America Washington was more inclined to agree with Hamilton than to he was Jefferson, which saw the implementation of many of Hamilton’s policies. But it was at this crucial moment in our young country’s history that saw the birth of the two primary political parties in America.

Those who believed as did Hamilton called themselves Federalists, and those who believed as did Jefferson, that government should be kept small and confined to the few specific powers granted it, were known, first as the Republican-Democrats, and then later on, simply as Democrats.

But as America grew, and prospered, more people flocked to this country for the opportunities it offered. These new immigrants did not participate in the Revolution, nor did they suffer under the yoke of tyranny laid upon them by King George III. Therefore their allegiance primarily went towards whoever sought to improve business and industry; thereby creating the jobs they needed to survive and thrive in America…which meant they supported the Federalist Party.

Yet the Democrats still managed to maintain a certain amount of power to check, or limit the power exercised by the Federalists. Did you know that of the first 15 Presidents, 9 of them were Democrats? Washington was what we would call non-partisan, John Adams was a Federalist, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore were Whigs…the rest were Democrats.

Yet still, the Federalists were able to use the power of government to fuel economic growth, (primarily in the North) by the taxes derived from tariffs; which were primarily paid for by the agricultural South. Whatever checks the Democrats had been able to impose upon the Federalist policies coming out of Congress were obliterated in 1860 when a young Republican, Abraham Lincoln was elected to the presidency.

Lincoln barely got any support among the Southern Democrats; showing how widely the division between the two parties had become–even as far back as 1860. Once he was elected there were many in the South who felt that they were forced into deciding whether to submit to a government that had abandoned the beliefs of Jefferson and Madison or to do as their ancestors did; declare their independence from it.

They chose Option B and seceded from the Union. It does not matter why they chose to secede, be it slavery or be it tariffs; or a combination of the two. What matters is that they exercised what was commonly accepted as a States right when government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. This is, or it was, the bedrock principle enshrined in the Declaration of Independence; and when Abraham Lincoln raised an army to stop them he, figuratively, ran the Declaration of Independence through a paper shredder.

With the defeat of the Confederate Army the States saw their sovereignty severely diminished, if not obliterated altogether. If government, an entity created and given life by the will of the people, can abandon the principles upon which it was founded, and then use military force to compel obedience to it, government ceases being one which rests upon consent of the governed and becomes tyrannical.

When that happened the Democrats either had to alter their position if they wished to remain a viable political party, or fade into oblivion. From that point forward the Democrats ceased being the party of Jefferson and Madison and became the party of the people against the party of big business; the Republicans. From that moment forward the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were relegated to the sidelines as inconsequential in determining which candidate was best suited to serve in government.

Over time the Democrats have worked tirelessly to expand their voter base by including special interests, such as immigration rights groups, pro-abortion groups, gay rights advocacy groups, and most of the Unions across America. Today American politics can be summed up in one simple statement, it is a contest between the party of big business and the rich against the underdogs, the little guy and the poor and needy.

But that is just a superficial look at it; for if you were to look at the list of campaign donors to both parties you would see that they both include big business contributors, unions, and other special interests. Yet among all those who funnel money into politics via the machinery of the political parties, you WILL NOT find any group that seeks to limit the scope of governmental authority and power.

The only difference between the two parties these days is who gets to use the power of government to further their agenda; the idea that government should actually be required to limit its authority to the specific powers given it is a concept so foreign to most voters that they look at those who speak of it as if they have lost their minds.

Our country was established by men who sought liberty and who were ready to die obtaining it. Now it is populated by people who don’t give a rats ass about liberty; all they care about is what government can do for them. It doesn’t matter if what government can do for them consists of fueling economic growth or providing benefits for the needy; all these things are beyond the scope of power originally given our government, and do nothing to secure the liberty government was established to safeguard.

I don’t care who you vote for, be it a Republican or a Democrat, if the candidate of your choice is not campaigning on the platform of restoring liberty to the American people then they are running on a platform of destroying the liberty of the American people. There is no middle ground on this; either you are voting on a pro-liberty platform or you are voting on a pro-slavery platform.

It doesn’t matter who you vote for when the agency you are voting them into continues to pass laws that restrict the liberty it was established to secure. As Lysander Spooner said, “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”

So go right on ahead and keep playing your silly game of right versus left; conservative versus liberal; Republicans versus Democrats. Me, I’ll keep defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights against whomever attacks them; for liberty has no political party.

Okay folks, time to put on your thinking caps as I have a question for you that requires a bit of thinking on your part. Here goes, “By what authority does your government hold any power over you, your property, and your liberty?”

People say that we have government by consent in America; but that is not the case. I do not consent to it, yet I am still forced to obey its edicts; and if I ignore them I can be arrested, fined, and even killed if I resist. How, by any definition of the word, is that consent?

The biggest problem in this country, (at least as it pertains to government), is peoples beliefs regarding the purpose that government should serve. I know people are not inclined to spend their free time reading the writings of a bunch of men who have been dead for centuries, but had they been so inclined they might have discovered that many of our Founding Fathers felt that government should serve but one purpose, to preserve and protect the liberty of those being governed.

That is the bedrock principle upon which America, (as a free and independent country) was founded, “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…” (Declaration of Independence)

Fifteen years later a man named James Wilson would write, “Government … should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.” (Source: Lectures on Law, 1791)

So answer me this, if our government was instituted to preserve and protect our rights, and if government no longer does that, why is it that you continue to support it? C’mon, it’s a simple question. Yet were I to mention abolishing this government we have because it no longer serves its intended purposes I would be looked upon as if I were a madman; and that is true regardless of whether I was talking to a group of Republicans or a group of Democrats.

Can you not see that by supporting government as an entity, regardless of which party currently controls it, you are supporting an entity that limits the very liberty it was instituted to protect? Honestly, I sometimes think that most people believe that government was instituted to protect the people from the ‘other’ party; meaning the Republicans think that government exists to protect them from the policies of the Democrats, and vice versa.

Getting back to my original question, by what authority does this government hold any power over me, my property, or my rights? I certainly did participate in any vote to accept government in its current state. I certainly did not affix my name to any constitution granting this government any power over me.

The only reason this government holds any authority over any of us is because we consent to it by participating in selecting those to fill the various seats of power within it, and by paying our taxes to fund and support it. If a majority of the people in this country were to withdraw their consent, what could our government do to stop them? It certainly could not arrest 150-200 million people; what would it do for taxes if it put that many people in prison?

You want to know what makes me laugh, it is when people say that they support the rights of minorities, but then turn around and support measures that deprive people of their basic rights. Ayn Rand expressed this best when she said, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

Since I’m quoting Rand, let me give you her definition of true freedom. In her book Atlas Shrugged Rand writes, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Freedom, or liberty, means that you and you alone are responsible for your life and its outcome. Far too many people believe that it is societies, or governments job to provide a safety net for those who cannot, or do not achieve success or riches. People today are taught that they are not to be held accountable for the choices they make in life.

It is this mindset that has made those who do achieve success or riches slaves to those who do not. Yet the very man who authored our Declaration of Independence also said, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” (Source: Letter to Joseph Milligan, 1816)

Yet isn’t that exactly what is happening with all these social service programs government institutes to provide all these benefits to those in need? How can you claim to be truly free when your taxes are being used to subsidize the existence of others, or when they are being used to improve business and industry? Our government was NOT established to care for the poor and needy, nor was it established to benefit and grow a booming economy. As Patrick Henry so aptly said, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

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

Gee, doesn’t that sound like the very things our government does today; yet they were opposed by the so-called Father of our Constitution. But again, Madison died in 1836, so something someone who has been dead for almost 200 years is irrelevant today…right?

Well, if what those men thought and said is irrelevant then isn’t the government they created irrelevant as well? After all, if their thoughts regarding the powers given that government are irrelevant, then the very document which established our system of government is irrelevant. And if that document is irrelevant, then that government no longer holds any power over us; unless of course you want to admit that you are being governed by tyrants.

When one mentions tyrants those hearing it assume they are talking about whomever sits at the helm of government; men like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Saddam Hussein. But those are just men, and as men are capable of being taken out of power and killed if they exercise unjust power over others…right? Well, not if they have an army to support and protect them, and enforce the laws they enact upon the governed.

That is why our Founders feared a standing army; because they typically become the means by which tyrants impose their will upon a people who no longer consent to the authority of government. Now when I say a standing army I’m guessing that people assume I mean a standing military; but that is not the case. Any group of armed men who enforce the laws enacted by government could be considered a standing army; all the way from the FBI and the DEA all the way down to the town sheriff and local law enforcement.

If someone is in a position to use force against others to impose the will of government, then they are part of a standing army. And when that power is used to diminish or restrict the natural rights of even a single individual they are no less tyrannical than those who actually write the laws. Had you read the speeches and writings of Patrick Henry you would have seen that he was as much opposed to the tyrannical powers wielded by sheriffs as he was the power of a standing army.

Tyranny is tyranny; and it doesn’t matter whether it is exercised by a bunch of men and women in a Congress, or by those wearing the uniforms of law enforcement. After all, the British Redcoats were the law enforcers for King George, and our ancestors were considered patriots for standing up to their authority to restrict their liberty. Why should it be any different today unless the people accept that they willingly submit to tyranny?

People today believe they are free because they can choose what to eat, where to work, what to do to be entertained, but that isn’t freedom. Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want, so long as you don’t deprive someone else of that same right.

Yet government has imposed all these limitations upon what people can and cannot do without the permission of some governmental agency. Let me tell you something, you are NOT free when you first need to obtain permission to do something.

You don’t believe me; well take a look at the following things you need a license or permit to do; then you may just see the extent to which you are NOT free.

-go hunting

-go fishing

-build a home

-get married

-operate a motor vehicle

-carry a weapon for your own defense

-sell liquor

-cut hair

-open any kind of business

-sell a product

-protest

-broadcast on the airwaves

See what I mean; you can hardly do anything without first obtaining permission to do it. Not only that, almost everything you do these days is somehow taxed. Look at any of your monthly bills and you’ll see that there are a multitude of taxes imposed upon you. Sure, they may be nickel and dime taxes compared to how the government rapes you of your income, but they are taxes nonetheless.

It has been said that a 3% tax eventually led to the American Revolution. Yet today it is estimated that you work at least 5 months out of the year just to pay all the taxes you will pay over the course of that year. And people submit to all this; calling themselves free? I would love to see where they get their definition of freedom; for it certainly isn’t in any dictionary I’ve read.

And I haven’t even begun to mention how you are monitored, surveilled and spied upon without your consent or knowledge.

Do you want to know what really cracks me up, and makes me mad at the same time? It is when people tell me that because I don’t vote for presidential or Congressional candidates that I am part of the problem, not the solution; that I lose my right to complain.

If I don’t vote, and government does things that violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights, isn’t it the fault of the people who voted for corrupt candidates, not me? Isn’t it because people settled for the lesser of two evils, or chose candidates who campaigned upon issues that government has absolutely no authority to legislate upon?

My friend Michael Gaddy posed the following question on Facebook the other day, “If the Mafia held regular elections for leadership positions would they cease to be a criminal enterprise?” To explain how that relates to the subject at hand, just because you participate in choosing candidates for office does not diminish the fact that government as an entity is exercising unconstitutional powers; making IT a criminal enterprise run by criminals.

I know my thoughts may sound radical and are hard to accept for some, but as H.L. Mencken once said, “The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve 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.”

All these problems we face can be attributed to one simple fact; that fact being that the people of this country still believe in and support the idea of having a government that is not strictly bound by the limits imposed upon it by the document that created it. Instead of supporting the law that created government people support political parties. Instead of defending liberty they submit to laws that restrict it. Instead of seeking freedom they submit to servitude.

And everything I’ve said up to this point is directed to those who believe themselves to be politically motivated; I’ve yet to discuss those who are more concerned with football or reality TV than they are the sad state of affairs in their own government. But that’s a topic for another day.

All I know is that Lysander Spooner was right, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

I’m beginning to wonder, has America watched too much Jerry Springer; has it gotten that we can’t do anything without showing our ass to the world? I could go into great detail as to why I say that, but for brevities sake I will focus my attention upon recent events.

I have watched, rotating between perverted amusement and deep despair, the uproar over the Kavanaugh nomination for the Supreme Court. I have seen the victory dance of those on the political right after he was confirmed, and the resulting meltdown of those on the left upon hearing that their efforts to block his nomination had failed. Through it all I have sat back and asked myself WTF has happened to the people of this country?

Those on the political right have steadfastly supported Kavanaugh throughout this entire ordeal. Why? Why simply because he was nominated by their guy…Donald Trump; and if the left gets their feathers in such an uproar over him, he must be a good choice for the SCOTUS.

Is that the best that they can do to justify their support for his serving a life position on a panel of judges that have taken it upon themselves to interpret the Constitution this way or that? Almost 200 years ago Thomas Jefferson warned of the danger of giving that much power to the federal judiciary, “If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please.”

I did not watch any of the hearings on television because I knew the outcome from the moment his name was announced; I knew that he would be confirmed and that the argument over his nomination was just a circus sideshow to reinforce the division between left and right in this country without ever addressing whether Kavanauagh was actually constitutionally qualified to serve on the SCOTUS.

Now when I say constitutionally qualified, I suppose any judge could be considered constitutionally qualified; but what I meant was, would he support and defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or would he use the power of the SCOTUS to expand government’s power even more, while trampling even further upon our unalienable rights.

I knew from the get go that this aspect of his qualifications would never see the light of day, for if it had then it could be used by the political right in an effort to block any future nominations for the Supreme Court a Democrat President might make; and they simply couldn’t allow that to happen. So, instead we got a circus sideshow of mudslinging against his character as a man; in short, they found, (or produced) a sex scandal to be used to bring doubt about him as a person; because after all, sex sells in America…doesn’t it?

It did not seem to matter, and this includes both those on the right and the left, that as a judge Kavanaugh handed down a ruling saying that because no charges were ever leveled against a New York citizen while speaking to an Italian bookseller, the fact that the NSA had illegally listened in on his phone conversation was not a violation of the 4th Amendment’s protection of the right to privacy.

It does not seem to matter that the Patriot Act authorizes the FBI to issue its own search warrants, without probable cause, and then upon serving those search warrants demand that the person whose home, bank accounts, medical records, or whatever are being searched not be informed about it. In fact, the FBI could search your bank records without your knowledge, and if the bank were to notify you of it…they could go to jail. This is all part and parcel of the Patriot Act; and who was an essential cog in the creation of this monstrosity of a law that violates the 1st and 4th Amendments…why if it wasn’t a judge named Kavanaugh.

Yet I couldn’t get those who supported Kavanaugh, or those who opposed him to even consider the fact that he was instrumental in putting into effect a law which violates our basic freedoms; all they were concerned with was either the sexual misconduct charges leveled against him, or the fact that he was their man’s choice…their man being Donald Trump; and if Trump nominated him that was good enough for them.

I was told, just last night in fact, that the Patriot Act was passed immediately after the 9/11 attacks, and who didn’t support it? Well I certainly didn’t; for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons was that it was introduced and voted upon without any real effort to determine what it said. From my experience, bills of this nature that are written and passed in haste while sentiments are running high are often the ones we regret the most when time has cooled off our tempers.

Are you aware that Thomas Jefferson also felt that this exact scenario was also an evil to be avoided? In a letter to James Madison, written on December 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote, “The instability of our laws is really an immense evil. I think it would be well to provide in our constitutions that there shall always be a twelve-month between the ingross-ing a bill & passing it: that it should then be offered to it’s passage without changing a word: and that if circum-stances should be thought to require a speedier passage, it should take two thirds of both houses instead of a bare majority.”

What I find amusing is the position taken by those on the right regarding the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. They held that since he was appointed by Trump, and Trump is a so-called political conservative, that he must be a good choice. This position, in and of itself is flawed because those who call themselves conservatives in this country are anything but conservative.

I don’t know, maybe my idea of conservatism is old fashioned and outdated, but I believe a conservative is one who adheres strictly to the limitations placed upon our government by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. George W. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative, yet he gave us not only the Patriot Act, but he gave us No Child Left Behind; two laws which clearly go beyond the scope of power intended by a strict interpretation, (a conservative interpretation) of the Constitution.

Trump himself called for the execution of Edward Snowden at one time…for what; exposing the extent to which our government was breaking the law by spying upon us? I haven’t heard Trump call for Snowden to be pardoned, nor has he said anything about curtailing the NSA’s mass surveillance of the American people. Yet he is somehow a conservative? By whose definition might I ask?

While I can almost understand the position taken by those on the political right, what frightens me is the reaction of the political left to Kavanaugh’s confirmation, and even the election of Donald Trump for that matter. If they react this strongly against someone who isn’t even conservative, how do you think they would react if a real conservative got into office?

I think there are those behind the scenes who want to see this division grow even wider, and more violent in the confrontations between the two opposing sides. As long as they can control and manipulate the masses; keeping them at each other’s throats, so to speak, then little attention will be focused upon their crimes against the people and the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I think entire generations have been processed through our educational systems, (indoctrination centers is what I call them), which have produced a population which is incapable of critical thought. Instead of thinking, they have been indoctrinated into allowing their emotions to guide their actions and decisions; that there are only two viable positions to take; either the liberal one or the conservative one…and they get to define the positions both stand for.

No one cares about the truth these days. No one cares about what those who drafted our Constitution or those who argued against its ratification had to say about it. All that matters today is that their side wins and to hell with what a bunch of old dead guys said. After all, most of them owned slaves, so they must be evil…right?

I’m going to end this by posting a graphic and then the comments made by my Facebook friend Danielle Mottale regarding the graphic. I think she nailed it and I agree with her 100%. But I’ll let you decide for yourself; that is if you are still capable of thinking…

It used to be that the majority of people would fall into the 2nd category. It has always, and will always be the case that the 1st class of people is a tiny minority, and that’s ok. What we have now is a vast majority in the 3rd category. Those who refuse to see. It doesn’t matter how much we show them, even with facts and reason, it doesn’t matter even that they suffer the direct consequences of their blindness, it doesn’t matter yet that they subject themselves and their children to unnecessary pain and suffering and sometimes death, STILL, they have been fully conditioned, by various means to remain in that 3rd class.

That is why we are finished. ~Danielle Mottale~

If Americans cannot find it within themselves to use that grey matter between their ears then they will continue to make asses of themselves to the rest of the world by fighting and bickering amongst themselves while ignoring the real issue; the fact that our government as an entity is a criminal organization with absolutely no regard for the law that limits its authority.

Until that changes, nothing else will…

I’d almost be willing to bet that 999 out of 1,000 people don’t really understand what freedom is. Oh, they claim to love it, but from what I see and hear them say, they damned sure don’t know what it is; otherwise they wouldn’t be saying half the things they do.

Freedom is the right to live your life as you choose; not as someone else thinks you should. Freedom is the right to say things that other people don’t want to hear. Freedom is the right to display images that others find offensive. Freedom is the right to enjoy the fruits of your labors, (your income), without it being taxed and redistributed to those in need without your consent.

The thing about freedom, and I mean absolute freedom here, not the quasi-freedom people enjoy today, is that it also is accompanied by the responsibility to accept the consequences of whatever choices you make; and that scares the hell out of most people.

You can choose to do drugs if you like; but if you get addicted and require a substantial flow of cash to support your ‘habit’ you DO NOT have the right to steal from me to support it, or ask that a law be passed which taxes others to subsidize you because you are too stoned to hold down a job.
You can choose to live a gay or straight life style, but you are not free to tell others that they must accept that your position is correct; for if you do you are limiting their freedom to think and act as they please.

From what I see there seems to be this belief among the politically correct, or Social Justice Warriors, (SJW), that some things are to be considered offensive and taboo, while others are acceptable behavior and nobody has a right to do or say anything in opposition to them.

Look at all the recent times Civil War monuments have been torn down because some group finds them offensive. Yet there are just as many who take offense to the lyrics of some songs, or the fact that some kids wear their pants halfway down the crack of their ass. Yet it is okay to tear down a historical monument, but tell them to stop singing offensive lyrics or displaying their asses on city streets and you are violating their rights.

Does the phrase double-standards mean anything to any of you?

How anyone can claim to enjoy freedom in this country when their government micromanages and regulates almost every aspect of their lives is beyond me. I think the only people in this country who enjoy freedom are politicians; for there seems to be no restrictions on what they can do. But they damned sure impose plenty of restrictions upon us; even if they say it is for our own good.

I’m not a big fan of Daniel Webster but he did say something that I am somewhat in agreement with, “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.”

The mindset of most people in this country is that it is okay for government to pass laws the restrict freedom if it serves the overall public good. Ever hear the saying that it is better to let 1,000 guilty men go free than to convict 1 innocent man? There will always be crime; that is an unfortunate aspect of our weakness and foibles as human beings. Yet it is better that the innocent be protected against unjust accusations and criminal charges than to just cast a wide net and arrest everyone ‘suspected’ of committing a crime.

One of the most idiotic things I’ve heard people say is in reference to our governments spying upon our private conversations and communications to keep us safe from terrorism. Far too many people tell me, “If you don’t have anything to hide then you shouldn’t worry whether they are spying upon you or not.”

Whether I have anything to hide or not is NOT the point! The point is that I have the right to be free of the prying eyes and ears of the NSA or the CIA inside my home and while communicating with others on my phone and other electronic forms of communicating. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Whatever happened to requiring suspicion of guilt before obtaining a warrant to monitor a person’s private communications? We may as well NOT have a 4th Amendment if people think that anything goes as long as it keeps us safe.

I bet these same people who believe it is okay for our government to spy upon us without restriction would sing a different tune if they were pulled off the street and subjected to a full body cavity search just because they ‘LOOKED SUSPICIOUS.’ But hey, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander; right? If my right to privacy does not shield me from my government inside my home; while I’m travelling, or when law enforcement stops me for a random stop, then your right to privacy does not protect you from intrusive searches upon your person either when you have done absolutely nothing wrong.

People don’t seem to realize the slippery slope they embark upon once they say that it is acceptable to violate our basic rights just to keep us safe. That kind of mindset leads to full blown tyranny; where one cannot leave their home without the proper paperwork issued to them by some government bureaucracy.

Isn’t it bad enough that we cannot hunt, fish, or carry a weapon on our person for our own defense without a license or permit? How can we claim to be free when we cannot forage for food or defend ourselves without first obtaining permission from the government?

I once saw an interview with someone from the extreme political left; who for all their adult life had argued that the rich should be taxed more to provide for the needy. This person was complaining about the excessive taxes they had to pay upon a winning lottery ticket. They simply couldn’t understand why they shouldn’t be allowed to keep the entire amount they had won. Well, welcome to the world of unintended consequences…welcome to the world where your misguided beliefs turn around and bite you in the ass!

Don’t you find it the slightest bit ironic and hypocritical that many of those who believe we shouldn’t be allowed to own guns, and use them in our own defense, are among the first to dial 911 and expect men with guns to come rushing to their rescue?

Do you want to know what freedom is? Freedom is you leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone. That’s freedom; plain and simple. You don’t tell me how I should live my life; spend my money; what to eat; what to wear; what to say, and I’ll return the favor.

But freedom also means that if you make a mistake, or do something foolish, that you accept complete and total responsibility for it – don’t ask me to subsidize you if you make a STUPID choice. That’s the part about freedom that many forget…or conveniently choose to ignore.

Sure, you are free to break into my home and attempt to steal what is mine. But at the same time I am free to defend myself, my family, and my belongings with whatever force I deem the instance merits; up to and including the right to shoot you dead on the spot.

That was widely believed to be fact back in the days when liberty was the topic of discussion in America back in the late 1700’s. Samuel Adams himself wrote, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.” (My emphasis)

Years later Thomas Jefferson would write, “Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.” Therefore, if it was the right of the Colonists to defend their lives, their property, and their liberty with whatever force they deemed necessary, then it remains my right to do the same today – and I’ve had about all that I can stand of people trying to restrict my freedom!

I’m tired of people telling me I cannot do or say certain things because others find what I do or say offensive. So what; who cares if you are offended? You can be offended all you want, but you cross the line when you restrict someone’s right to freedom of speech or expression. You can dislike guns all you want, but you cross the line when you tell others that they cannot have, or use them for their own defense.

When you do these things, or vote for politicians who do them in your stead, you are an enemy to the liberty our system of government was supposed to protect.

They say an animal is the most dangerous when it has been backed into a corner. Well human beings are animals of a sort as well; and those of us who truly understand what it means to be free are being slowly backed into a corner where we will be forced to either submit to the absolute loss of all our freedoms, or fight to retain what little freedom we have left.

The thing all these left leaning Social Justice Warriors fail to realize is that justice is supposed to be blind; meaning it applies to all. Well their position is that justice can, and should come at the cost of the loss of freedom to those who hold differing opinions than they do. Sorry to break the news to you, but that isn’t justice, it’s tyranny; and there are still enough of us in this country who recognize that and are willing to make your lives a living hell if you push us much further.

You see, tolerance works both ways; you expect us to tolerate your views then you had better start tolerating ours. That is of course unless you want to pick a fight with us; and remember; we’re the ones with all the guns.

Keep that in mind…

Every so often I encounter someone who thinks that if America were to hold an Article 5 Convention that we could fix what is wrong with our Constitution, and by virtue of doing that we could end the corruption that permeates our government.

For those of you who aren’t up to speed on the Constitution, an Article 5 Convention refers to the process of proposing amendments to the Constitution as described in Article 5 of that document, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…”

I have long held that an Article 5 Convention would not only be an exercise in futility, it may prove disastrous. I suppose the time has come for me to justify that belief.

If memory serves me well I recall a similar type convention being held back in 1787 with the intent of amending the Articles of Confederation. However, instead of limiting themselves to the specific task of coming up with proposed amendments to strengthen the Confederation they scrapped the Articles of Confederation and produced an entirely new system of government with much greater power. What’s to prevent something similar from happening if another Constitutional Convention were to be held; particularly with the lack of regard most people in this country have for the limitations the current Constitution imposes upon their government?

If such a convention were to take place today, anything would be on the table as far as what amendments they might propose. Who knows; they could conceivably do away with the Bill of Rights; and with the current mindset of most people in this country regarding our unalienable rights, what’s to prevent such a proposal from being adopted by the requisite number of States?

Just look at how people view the Executive today in comparison to the Congress. The Constitution declares that ALL legislative authority is vested in the Congress, but most people think it is the job of the President to decide what direction this country will take and what laws should or should not be enacted. A Constitutional Convention could very well produce an elective monarchy; as if that isn’t already the current state of affairs anyway.

The problem with an Article 5 Convention, as I see it, is who would decide who the delegates to such a convention would be? Would it be the State Legislatures, who are afflicted by the same partisan ideologies that afflict the federal government? If that is the case, then all we would be doing is sending delegates to a convention whose sole concern is strengthening the government in ways that were beneficial to them.

If the choice of choosing delegates to such a convention were left to the people, who do you know among your circle of friends who would make good delegates; and by that I mean who among your circle of friends would seek to find ways to limit the influence wielded by special interests and ensure that our federal government strove only to secure the liberty of the people and respect the sovereignty of the States? Anyone come to mind? If not, then who do you think would attend such a convention; probably people who sought not to limit government, but increase its power in ways that benefitted them, or their chosen cause.

Even if we were to choose delegates to such a convention, and they were to come up with sound proposals for amendments to the Constitution which would limit its authority and reduce the influence wielded by special interests, who would enforce these changes? After all, wasn’t that our job as voters in the first place? Wasn’t it our responsibility to vote for wise and virtuous men and women who would take their oath to support and defend the Constitution seriously? After all, we’ve done such a stellar job on that; what could possibly go wrong with proposing amendments that the ignorant voting public is going to ignore in the first place?

I want you to read something said by James Garfield, our 20th President, back in 1877, “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.”

If we could even come to some sort of agreement on any proposed amendments to the Constitution, what good would it do when the people don’t give a damn about the existing limitations imposed upon their government by the Constitution right now?

Not only that, but even if they were to come up with proposals to limit the power held by their government, how would they enforce those limitations upon a government that doesn’t care what limits are imposed upon it? Are you just going to write your representative a letter, or call them on the phone and say, “Hey, you can’t do that.” Do you think they will listen to you? Take it from me, it doesn’t work that way; I’ve tried telling my representatives to vote against measures I felt violated the Constitution – only to be rewarded with a form letter thanking me for participating in the democratic process.

Did you know that this lack of an enforcing mechanism was one of the major reasons Patrick Henry opposed ratification of the Constitution back in 1788? For instance, on June 5, 1788 Patrick Henry declared, “My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants.”

In the same speech Henry showed his skill with sarcasm when he said, “The Honorable Gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our Government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

Then he went on to give a warning that has come to pass, “A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your Mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?”

Just look at America today; we have a multitude of federal agencies whose sole reason for existing is to enforce the laws passed by our government. On top of all that we have local law enforcement which enforces the laws being written regardless of whether they violate our rights or are blatantly unconstitutional. Yet what agency do we have to enforce the Constitution upon those we elect to hold office? Can we dial 911 and say, “I would like to report a crime, my government is spying upon me; violating my 4th Amendment right to privacy.” See how well that works out for you. After all, Edward Snowden had to flee for his life just because he brought it to your attention that your government was violating your rights.

Speaking of the government being proposed by the first Constitutional Convention, Henry said, “…there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law — for there is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.”

So again I ask you, what good would any proposed amendments which would limit the power of our government be when the people don’t care about the existing limitations upon them, and that they have no means of enforcing those limitations upon them? Seriously, I’d like to hear your answer to that?

The only means of enforcing the limits upon the federal government is through the States via the process known as nullification; the act of a State simply choosing to NOT enforce laws it believes are unconstitutional. But that would only work if the States were not plagued by the same corrupting influence of political parties that our federal government is. As long as political parties maintain their control in government, (parties that sell out the voters for the interests of corporate and other special interests), the State governments will remain neutered against federal encroachment upon their sovereignty, and ineffective as a means of resisting federal authority.

As much as I have grown to dislike George Washington because he chose to listen to Alexander Hamilton and his grand vision for a strong central government, he did say something about political parties that I tend to agree with, “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

It’s sad that there is so much animosity towards the Confederate States of America, because when they seceded they took the Constitution of 1789 and rewrote it with improved passages which, they hoped, would prevent the government they were establishing from becoming like the one they were attempting to free themselves from. In short, they took the Constitution of 1789 and made it better; much like what those proposing an Article 5 Convention today hope to do. So I would think it would be good to examine what changes they made to that document to ensure that the government it outlined did not become tyrannical and oppressive.

One of the things they changed was giving the President what we now call the Line Item Veto; the authority to veto certain segments of an appropriations bill without vetoing the entire bill. The specific text is as follows: The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President. (Source: Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2)

The next thing they did was seek to limit the ability of federal funds to be used to promote or benefit business and industry, “… but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry…” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1)

Then in Clause 3 of Article 1, Section 8 they sought to limit the abuse of the Commerce Clause by stating, “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation…”

Then in Section 9 they sought to limit the governments unrestricted spending by making it reliant upon a 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress, “Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays…”

Next, in a stroke of genius, they sought to prevent fraud and abuse by declaring that every spending bill expressly declare the exact amount to be spent, “All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.”

And finally, in an effort to eliminate pork barrel spending and other unrelated add on’s to legislation, they expressly declared that, “Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.”

These changes alone, if they were to be implemented today by Constitutional Amendment, would severely restrict our government in its ability to pass laws that are unconstitutional. These changes would eliminate pork barrel spending, fraud, and limit the ability of special interests from exerting their corrupting influence in the halls of power. But I doubt anyone today would want to see their government hamstringed by laws that would, in the end, limit its ability to pass laws which benefitted them in some fashion or another.

Regardless of what you might think about the reasons for which the Confederacy seceded, or for which the Civil War itself was fought, the Confederacy took the Constitution written in 1787 and improved it drastically by placing restrictions upon the spending power of Congress, and eliminating the means by which pork barrel projects were inserted into other spending bills.

These changes alone, if they were implemented today, would cripple the political parties and their corporate sponsors, and that is why changes like this wouldn’t stand a chance today.

And that is why I believe that any Article 5 Convention would either prove to be a complete and utter waste of time, or it would open Pandora’s Box and lead to a much stronger, more tyrannical government than we already have.

I’m open to critique on my position, but if you do choose to criticize my position might I ask that you provide facts which prove me wrong? If you can’t do that, then I will simply ignore your comments; I simply refuse to get into a debate with anyone who cannot back their position up with facts.

Have you ever heard the term moral compass? A person’s moral compass refers to their ability to distinguish between right and wrong; when I was growing up it was commonly referred to as our conscience. Yet a compass of any kind, including a moral one, can only point you in the right direction; it is up to each of us to follow our own moral compasses for them to be of any use; that is where integrity comes in. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines integrity as: the firm adherence to a code of moral or artistic values; INCORRUPTABILITY.

A person who adheres to their moral compass, and keeps it pointed due North is one who seeks out and defends the truth; no matter how much persecution they encounter from others. When Jesus sent out His 12 disciples to preach among the people He told them, “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues…” (Matthew 10:16-17) But then in verse 22 Jesus tells them, “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”

Now I don’t want to turn this into a religious sermon, I only wanted to point out that Jesus instructed His disciples to remain vigilant and steadfast; that they would be rewarded for their courage and integrity if they remained true to their beliefs in His teachings.

However, using that passage from the Bible as an analogy, if one were to replace the teachings of Jesus with the truth, then one might better be able to see how people today who speak the truth are reviled and shunned by those who have fallen prey to lies and deception; and how they persecute and revile those who follow their moral compasses towards the truth.

Does it take a certain amount of courage to seek out, and accept, the truth? Of course it does, but as Patrick Henry said in 1775, “For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

Those who placed their names upon the Declaration of Independence, and those who took up arms against their government in 1776 were men whose integrity was unquestionable; they were those whose moral compasses were firmly set to due north; and had the integrity to stand for what they believed in against almost insurmountable odds.

It says a great deal about the character and integrity of the people living in America today that many reject the truth when confronted with it; while others don’t care one way or the other about it. How often do we see people voting for candidates who make all these campaign promises which are clearly not among the specific powers of their government to touch upon in the legislative process? Yet, when a candidate comes along who comes close to being constitutionally correct, such as Ron Paul, he is rejected by those who claim to be conservatives. These voters would rather cast their votes for someone who stands a chance of winning than they would vote for someone who says they would defend the Constitution.

I’m not saying everyone in this country is bad; I’m only saying that it seems that the truth is of little importance to them. There are certainly those whose hearts are in the right place; they only believe in a system that no longer serves the purpose for which it was established; and hasn’t for quite some time.

These people vote based upon their understanding, or beliefs, as to what purpose government should serve. Unfortunately, most of them don’t know, or don’t care, why their system of government was originally established. Therefore, when they vote they are voting for candidates who are, in effect, criminals who use government to serve purposes it was never intended to serve. For if our Constitution is, in fact, the Supreme Law of the Land, does that not make those who violate it criminals? Also, if you are voting for criminals, what does that make you; accomplices?

That is why I am very selective in deciding who I vote for; often choosing not to cast a vote for anyone in any of the federal races. You see, I would rather not vote, than cast my vote for someone who does not meet muster in regards to how well they would support and defend the Constitution. But to most in this country party over principle prevails; they would rather vote for Candidate A to stop Candidate B from winning; even if Candidate A is only marginally better than Candidate B.

For a long time my moral compass was out of calibration, for I too was just another voter casting his votes along partisan lines; thinking the Democrats were evil and the Republicans were good. But there was something in my DNA that caused me to seek out the truth; and when I found that truth I realized that government itself is evil, and no matter who won the elections government was NOT going to change for the better. Once I accepted that, the rest became easy.

For some it is too painful a process to accept the truth; they would rather believe the lies they have been taught instead. Yet for those who truly love liberty, the truth is the only pathway that leads to it. If you choose not to embrace, or seek out the truth, you are either a blind man travelling down the road to tyranny and oppression, or you are actively seeking to undermine all that America once stood for; and are pure evil. I’ll let you decide which applies to you.

All I know is that my moral compass will not allow me to sit idly by whilst the country I love goes down the toilet; I will continue to speak the truth as I know it; even if it means I am ridiculed and ignored by the entire country. As Patrick Henry also said, “Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.”

I can’t speak for others I can only speak for myself. My faith is not in political systems or political parties; my faith lies in the truth; no matter where that truth takes me, or how many try to silence me for speaking it. I may stumble along the way to the truth, I may take a wrong turn here or there, but my quest for it will remain unwavering until I find it. My moral compass demands no less of me; what is your moral compass saying to you?