I’m Tired Of Arguing With Ignorant People


Lately I’ve been finding myself fighting both sides of the political spectrum; with those who support Hillary criticizing me because they believe I support a womanizing unqualified Trump, and Trump supporters hammering me because since I do not intend to vote for him I’m giving the election to Hillary who will be the final nail in the coffin to our Constitution.

Frankly I’ve had enough of it; ya’ll haven’t heard a damned thing I’ve been saying! Either it’s going in one ear and out the other, or you’re simply not capable of processing the reasons I’ve given why I do not intend to vote for either candidate.

I’m pretty sure that this close to the election most of you reading this have made up your minds as to whom you will vote for. What I would like for you to do is make a list in your head of all the reasons why you are voting for that particular candidate. Most likely it is because of one of two reasons; you are voting for them because of the things they promised to do throughout their campaign, or because you believe them to be better qualified than the other candidate. I actually had someone tell me that because Hillary has more political experience that makes her the better choice for president; regardless of how poorly she served while obtaining that experience.

The problem as I see it is that a vast majority of people do not know the primary purposes for which our government was established. They do not know that there are limits which were placed upon the things our government can do, and the vast majority of the things it does these days exceeds those limits. Throughout people’s lives they are taught that government is there to provide them with things and they have no idea that by their voting for candidates who make all these unconstitutional campaign promises they are culpable in electing criminals to office.

How many of you have actually read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including their preambles? I’m being generous and guessing that maybe half of you have read them. Okay, how many of those who answered they had read those documents have read the Federalist Papers in their entirety? How many have read Joseph Stories Commentaries on the Constitution? How many have read the anti-Federalist writings of Cato; Brutus; Centinel; the Federal Farmer; and Patrick Henry. How many have read Locke’s Second Treatise, or De Tocqueville’s Democracy In America? I’ll bet very few of you can answer that you have.

You see, I have read these things, over and over, and over again. I’ve also tried to read everything I could get my hands on from those who lived and participated in the Founding of our Republic. I have acquaintances that are far more knowledgeable than I am, but I would be willing to bet that as for understanding the mindset of those who established our Republic I am far more knowledgeable than 90% of the voting populace; and that’s probably being very generous.

What makes you think that your views on who would make a good president valid when you can’t even tell me what the reasons are for which our government was established, or the powers that were originally given it by the framers of the Constitution? Hmmm?

Having read as extensively as I have on the founding of this country I cannot for the life of me find one instance where the Founders mentioned that the purpose of government was to provide things for the people of this country such as affordable health care, or a college education. Yet those are things both candidates have addressed; each with their own plan to address these issues.

Do you think our Founders went to war with their government so they could get free health care, a college education, a retirement fund, or so that their government could create jobs? You want to know the primary reason our Founders fought for their independence, and later established this system of government? The answer is one word: LIBERTY. Their government had violated what they believed to be their Natural Rights and they fought to restore them.

It’s right there at the very beginning of our Constitution in the Preamble; “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)

In 1771, before the thought of independence ever crossed the minds of most of the Colonists, Samuel Adams wrote, “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.”

The very same Patrick Henry who enflamed the hearts of his fellow Virginians to fight for independence with his immortal words, “Give me liberty or give me death” would also tell the Virginia delegation considering adopting the Constitution, “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.”

Dr. Joseph Warren, who lost his life at the Battle of Bunker Hill during the Revolution, once said, “Stain not the glory of your worthy ancestors, but like them resolve never to part with your birthright; be wise in your deliberations, and determined in your exertions for the preservation of your liberties. Follow not the dictates of passion, but enlist yourselves under the sacred banner of reason; use every method in your power to secure your rights.”

Finally, James Wilson, one of but a few men who was present and whose name appears on both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, declared, “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.”

Liberty dammit, not benefits, entitlements or jobs; that’s what our Founders fought for and why they established our system of government.

Now, can you tell me how either candidate currently running for president plans to restore the liberty Americans have lost over the past 150 years?

I didn’t think so! That is because neither the candidates seeking office, or the voting public, care about that part of the job description for our government.

Liberty is defined as: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views, or, the power or scope to act as one pleases.

Liberty has but one restriction upon it; the equal rights of others. As Thomas Jefferson would say in a letter to Francis Glimer in 1816, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

Liberty is the freedom to think, act, speak as one pleases so long as in so doing you do not restrict the rights of others. After all, that is the definition of freedom: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

When our Constitution was presented to the people for their consideration there was a segment of the people who felt it did not do enough to preserve the rights they had fought so hard to retain just a few years prior. To appease their fears a Bill of Rights was promised if they would just accept the Constitution as is. Even then, there were those who felt this Constitution created a government that would eventually become destructive of the liberty they had gained.

In his speech to the Ratifying Assembly, Patrick Henry declared, “It is said eight States have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve States and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it.”

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

Can you get that through your thick skulls, because there is a lot of subtle information contained within their ruling? First of all it says that these rights are withdrawn from the vicissitudes of political controversy, placing them beyond the reach of majorities and officials. In case the word vicissitude is not in your vocabulary, it means the act of being variable. So if a right said and meant one thing when it was adopted, it cannot mean something different 200 years later. It also means that neither politicians nor a majority of the people can argue as to whether that right can be limited; they are permanent, or as the old saying goes, written in stone.

But then the SCOTUS continued by saying that these are legal principles to be applied by the courts. And this is where I take great offense at the actions of the Supreme Court. Both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are laws to be applied by the courts, not interpreted; with the search for hidden, or implied meanings found within the various Clauses and Amendments.

For instance, the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it is commonly known, was accepted by the Supreme Court, with their justifying it based on the grounds that since Congress can levy taxes they could levy a fine, or penalty, to those who did not have health insurance. They never came out and said that it was constitutional for the government to require that people obtain health insurance, only that the government can penalize you if you don’t.

This was not the SCOTUS has used twisted logic and perversion of constitutional principles to expand the powers held by our government; and it probably won’t be the last time either. How many government programs or laws have been ruled to be constitutional because the Justices interpreted them to be implied under either the General Welfare or Commerce Clauses?

You have to remember, the Supreme Court is part of the government. The nine black robed tyrants are human beings, and therefore capable of deceit and party loyalty. Why else would such emphasis be given to the fact that a Democratic President or a Republican President be allowed to pick new Justices to the Court? If the SCOTUS were truly impartial and unbiased; with the Constitution and Bill of Rights being their sole guide in forming decisions, it should not matter whether the president appointing Justices was a liberal or a conservative.

In Federalist 45 James Madison declared that, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” If they are few and defined, how come I find no mention of providing health care to the people within them? As far as that goes I find no mention of creating jobs, providing a college education to our children, or even providing us with a retirement fund, (Social Security); yet these are all things the public clamors for and more, allowing our government to grow far beyond the limited one envisioned by the framers of our Constitution.

Then there are our rights; those things that government cannot restrict. How many of our rights have come under attack; either by our government, or by those in society who feel that they are outdated or offensive? More than I care to admit; that’s how many!

Freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment has withered away to a frail remnant of its former self because today people are so sensitive that anything they disagree with is deemed offensive, and the speaker is told to silence their offensive rhetoric. If you recall, freedom is defined as, the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Therefore anyone who tells me that I cannot speak my mind because others find it offensive is violating my freedom of speech.

As recently as 1989 it was ruled by Justice William Brennan that, “If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” I see no mention of political correctness or people’s feelings in that quote; do you?

Same thing goes for all those who take offense at the flying of the Confederate Battle Flag. I find the flying of the national flags of other nations in the US offensive; after all this IS the United States of America, and if you wish to reside here you should have, as Theodore Roosevelt said, “…renounced completely and without reserve all allegiance to the land from which they or their forefathers came…” (Children of the Crucible Speech, 1917) But oh, that’s politically incorrect and bound to offend someone. But these same people do not care that they are offending those who truly understand what the Confederate Battle Flag stands for.

Oh the hypocrisy… You know, when I was growing up people had a phrase they used to tell crybabies and whiners. It went something like this, “Grow a pair of balls and quit being such a pussy!”

Then there is the 2nd Amendment and my right to keep and bear arms; another right I have been told that needs revising to require permits, background checks, limits on the capacity of magazines and ammunition, and even an outright restriction on private ownership of guns.

Ooooh this gets me mad. Do people even understand the nature of a right? Do they realize that you do not need a permit to exercise it? Do you need a permit to speak about politics, or to vote, even though you don’t know the first damned thing about our system of government? Why should a permit be required to carry a firearm for my own defense? The best way to solve the problem of people not being properly trained in the safe handling of firearms is to teach them in our schools under proper supervision in a controlled situation. But oh, the politically correct crybabies don’t want their children exposed to guns.

So what do we end up with; a society of people who, many of whom don’t know the first thing about the safe handling of guns and who abuse them to commit crimes. In the 1878 case of Wilson v State the court ruled, “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

Then there is the whole idea of requiring me to obtain a permit to carry a gun, and then only if it is concealed so as not to cause a general panic among those who are deathly afraid of guns. Bullshit, the right to carry does not say it must be hidden from view. In fact, in Bliss v Commonwealth, 1822, the courts ruled, “For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”

Our 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments have been gutted by laws fighting terrorism, but we all say it’s for the best to keep us safe from terrorists. Never once do the people who say these idiotic statements take into consideration that most of the terrorist groups we face today are either creations of our own government or its failed foreign policy of intervention in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

I could go on and on and on until I turn blue in the face; but you people won’t get it. You have drunk the Kool Aid, fallen for the lies, and believe that your government is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing.

People today don’t want to think; and I mean truly take the time to dig and find the truth. Thomas Edison, the same guy who invented the phonograph, the motion picture camera, and the long lasting incandescent light bulb, once said, “Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”

Then Isaac Asimov, the famed science fiction writer, is quoted as saying, “The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

How can you debate a person who refuses to accept fact? How can you prove a person wrong in a debate when they present no facts of their own; only the things they hear on TV from the news or spewing out of the mouths of the very people seeking to destroy their liberty?

You can’t. To attempt to do so is the very definition of the word futile.

That doesn’t mean I won’t stop trying; it only means that I’m getting fed up with arguing with a bunch of ignoramuses who don’t know the difference between shit and shinola; (An old saying my dad used to use).

Believe me, I was once as ignorant and blind to the truth as you are now. But I had the courage and the determination to find the truth; and once I found it the world took on a whole new perspective. But you’ll never see it because most of you still have your heads buried in the sand.

A few final quotes and then I’ll be on my way. The first comes from Ben Franklin, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The second comes from author George Orwell, who gave us the epic novels 1984 and Animal Farm, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Finally, the third comes from Founder Dr. Benjamin Rush, who said, “Freedom can exist only in the society of knowledge. Without learning, men are incapable of knowing their rights.”

Don’t expect me to shut up anytime soon; I’m in this for the long haul. As long as our educational system is failing to teach our youth the truth about the history of their country, and its system of government, I’ll be here to attempt to correct their shortcomings and attempts to produce future generations of Americanus Ignoramus. (Thanks to Michael Gaddy for that name by the way.)


Posted in General | 1 Comment

Ass Backwards


Make no mistake about it I despise Hillary Clinton with a passion that is barely contained; she is evil, pure and simple. Yet, for all the hype and hoopla surrounding Donald Trump, I don’t think he is a much better choice for president for numerous reasons; chief among them being that he is not a true Constitutionalist. Although Trump is an outsider, and is on the receiving end of opposition from the Republican Party faithful, it does not mean that Trump knows the first thing about the limits imposed upon the office he seeks by the Constitution; only that he is a wild card the GOP cannot control and who has tapped into the anger and resentment voters have with the Republican Party and their failure to uphold traditional conservative values.

People vote Republican because they say they are voting for traditional conservative values; but who defines those values; the Republican Party, the religious right, the military industrial complex whose endless war making has ruined lives, killed untold thousands, and made enemies of a major portion of the Middle East? At least be honest with who and what you are; after all the Democrats are honest about what they stand for, why can’t the GOP do the same?

We haven’t had a true Constitutionalist in the White House for a V E R Y long time. People talk all this talk about Reagan being this bastion of conservative values; yet he chose a CIA stooge for his running mate and gave us Iran/Contra. The last time we saw anyone near a true Constitutionalist run for president the GOP faithful shunned him because his foreign policy went against the interests of the military industrial complexes dream of endless war in the Middle East. Can’t cut into their profit margins now, can we? So those professing to be conservative fled to Mitt Romney; leaving America with 8 yrs of Barack Obama. Well done conservatives, well done!

So in essence, all we have been doing for decades now is flip flopping between avowed Socialists, and faux conservatives; all the while hoping for a restoration of constitutionally limited government. How’s that been working out for you? Our national debt has skyrocketed to an astronomical $19 trillion, we haven’t seen a single year of peace since I was born back in 1958, and the moral fiber which holds this country together has become so frayed and torn that society is unraveling before our very eyes.

Yet every year the leader of that cadre of criminals has the gall to stand before Congress and tell the people that the state of our union is strong. Absolutely mind boggling! But people still continue to put their faith in a system that, for decades, has been rigged to ensure that only those loyal to their special interest masters win the golden ticket to the White House.

The media is comprised of nothing but shills; corporate whores whose sole job is to shape and manipulate public opinion. Yet where do a majority of the people go for their news; that same media. Yet they make decisions based upon what they see or hear on these news reports and then have the audacity to say they are making ‘informed’ decisions.

Look at all the attention given the things Trump has said, while the media remains deathly silent regarding the things Hillary has done. Even if Trump is guilty of all these accusations, why doesn’t the media bring up the fact that the guy who will accompany Hillary to the White House should she win is guilty of far worse; yet neither her, nor her campaign staff has broached the subject of her philandering husband and the trail of women behind him all the way back to his time at Oxford.

Then there are the Wikileaks e mails that the media is telling us to ignore because just by our viewing them makes US criminals. Since when have the actions of those in our government been so secret that they must be kept from the eyes of the American people?

Various great men have spoken out against the evils of a government that attempts to hide its actions from the people. For instance, Lord Acton who once said, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” also said, “Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.”

Then, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said, “The Press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people.”

Then during the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry said, “The liberties of a people never were, nor every will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” So you see, just because the media is not doing their job to report on the information contained within the Wikileaks e mails, it does not mean we do not have the right to know what those we elect are doing. All the time these candidates talk about transparency, but when it comes to their own actions, or culpability in what may be criminal activity, oh how they sing a different tune!

While I find the things Trump may, or may not, have said/done distasteful, I find what Hillary has done over the course of her career in politics far more disturbing. At least Trump hasn’t had anyone killed; while there is a long list of those who have gotten in the way of the Clinton’s who have mysteriously died under questionable circumstances. And yet again, the media remains silent on that; calling those who bring it up tin foil hat conspiracy theorists.

You can call me, and others like me, conspiracy theorists if you want; that’s your prerogative. But there comes a point in time when you have to accept that if someone threatens someone else’s political aspirations or career, and then that person suddenly ends up dead; and this pattern repeats itself over and over again, it is more than mere coincidence. How many people have posed threats to the Clintons, and then suddenly ended up dead? If I’m not mistaken the number is around 70 now. That’s way too many to be mere coincidence if you ask me; tin foil hat or no tin foil hat.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news…well, actually I don’t, but anyway, we aren’t going to fix anything at the polls until we fix ourselves first. Americans have become so used to speed; we want faster internet service, instant messaging, breaking news, and we have little patience for people telling us that the solution to our problems may take years…decades…to come to fruition. Yet the slow, but steady decline of our Constitutional Republic has been going on for 150 years now; yet people want it fixed in the 4 years allotted to a presidential term?

Although people may have an inkling that they elect those who hold the seats of power in government, I don’t think they fully understand that government works for us, that it is bound by certain limits upon its actions, and that if it oversteps those limits we can, at any time, abolish government. At no point in my endless study of the founding of this republic did I come across the belief that our system of government was to be permanent; that no matter how bad it got the people could not alter or abolish it.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson stated the following in a letter to James Madison while he was abroad serving as ambassador to France, “The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government.”

Jefferson, as primary author of the Declaration of Independence, declared “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

That is the foundation upon which our system of government was built. Yet four score and seven years later (Gettysburg Address) a war was fought, not between North and South, but between one section of the country that sought to exercise those exact powers described in the Declaration of Independence, and the government created by the Constitution. We know this was as the Civil War, but in truth it was a second war for independence; one which was lost by those seeking to assert their God-given right to live as free men with a government of their choosing.

It has all been downhill ever since.

Yet the fundamental truths held in our founding documents has not changed one iota; our rights come from God, our government derives its just authority from our consent, and when government becomes destructive to the ends for which it was established, (as it has), it is our right to alter or abolish it.

But those aren’t easy fixes, rapid solutions; they entail a study of what our system of government was founded upon, it entails the willingness to put all you have on the line in the defense of those principles, and it takes the desire to not accept evil in any form in our government. With all the voting for the lesser of two evils I see going on, I know for a fact that most Americans don’t have it in them to restore our country to its former greatness.

We have gotten soft; too used to a life of comfort where we can pick up a phone and order a pizza to be delivered to our front door, or mail order clothes from a website. We want to be able to fix America the same way; listen to a few campaign speeches, pick the best of the two candidates running, then go back to our lives of comfort and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights be damned!

Good luck with that!

The America I see now is not united, not even close. We pick and choose these single issue topics to base our voting decisions upon. We vote on immigration, gun control, abortion, the next pick to the Supreme Court, fighting terrorism, or whatever your pet cause is, while we disregard the true purposes for which our government was created. Then when our candidate does not win we pout until it’s time to vote for someone else.

Hell, I’ve been reading that there is fear that riots are going to take place no matter who wins this election; as neither said believes it will be fair. Yet we call ourselves the UNITED States of America? I don’t see anything united about us; we are divided along issues and racial divisions, while the matters of individual liberty and personal responsibility have fallen by the wayside.

You know there is a huge parallel between our forsaking of the principles upon which this country was founded and the suffering of the Israelites when they forsook the Law as given to them by God on the tablets Moses brought down from Sinai.

In 1774 Thomas Jefferson wrote A Summary View of the Rights of British American, wherein he states, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

How long was it after the government created by the Constitution that the people began to forget that simple premise? Was it a decade, two, a century? It doesn’t matter how long it was, but the longer we forget that simple premise, and the fact that government is bound by law to act only according to the specific powers granted it, the problems this country faces will continue to grow exponentially. It is only by a return to the belief that government should be limited; far more limited than any conservative candidate I’ve heard say. It is only when America minds its own business and stops meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations that we may begin to hope for peace.

But oh no, you can’t talk about cutting benefits, or entitlements as people like to call them. You can’t ask that people accept responsibility for their own success or failures. You can’t ask that people stop looking to government to provide them with security and safety. That is simply asking too much of people.

If you ask me, it is asking too much of people to actually think. I believe that due to the dumbing down of generations of Americans by our public fool system they are incapable of critical thought; and slavery is probably a much safer choice than the animating contest for freedom. That’s what I think.

It’s hard enough convincing people that are government today does not bear the slightest resemblance to the one outlined by the Constitution; yet there are people expect me to tell the masses that our government is being controlled by a coterie, [a small exclusive group of people who share the same interests], whose ultimate goal is one world governance and the abolishment of the sovereignty of nations and the liberty of the people who inhabit them?

America was not founded by people who put their faith in hopes and dreams, or the voting booth; it was founded by those who craved liberty and had the courage to stand up to their government to obtain it. Today people look to government for the answer to all their problems, and that only gives government more control over their lives and takes them further down the pathway of tyranny and oppression. Nothing will change in this country as long as people keep asking a government to do things for them which already does far more for them than it is authorized to do.

America will not change until people realize that government is not their friend, it is their enemy. As Thomas Paine said in his book Common Sense, “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.”

America will never fix its problems until the people have the courage to declare, as did Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death.” That may sound harsh, it may sound like treason, but the fact is that government works for us by a specific grant of power known as the Constitution. When government oversteps the limits placed upon its powers, government becomes the criminal, not those who oppose government.

Back in my younger days people like that were known as patriots. If you ask me, it just goes to show how ass backwards things have become.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The Conversation

Recently, as many of you know, my family took a month long vacation to the Philippines. While there my sister-in-law gave my wife and I a pair of Rodrigo Duterte T-shirts. Yesterday, for shits and giggles, we both decided to wear them at the same time while out grocery shopping. While we got quite a few looks from people, (maybe because the shirts are bright yellow), we didn’t get any comments; that is until we got to WalMart.


A conversation ensued between a WalMart cashier, (who is a Filipina friend of ours), myself, and another WalMart customer, (who from the way she was dressed appeared to be a throwback to the Woodstock era hippies.) I will attempt to reconstruct the conversation to the best of my recollection; but some of the wording may not be exactly as it went down.

Cashier: Duterte? Really? He is violating human rights in the Philippines.

Me: Really? Our government has been violating most of our rights for a long time; especially since 9/11, and if Hillary gets elected it will only get worse.

Cashier: But Duterte is calling Obama names and making enemies of the United States.

Me: Well, if Obama would stop telling Duterte how to run his country maybe he wouldn’t call Obama a son of a whore.

Customer: We need to think globally and act locally.

Me: America needs to mind its own business; stop meddling in the affairs of other countries and start taking care of business at home. If Hillary gets elected she’s going to meddle in Syria and piss off the Russians; possibly leading to World War III.

Customer: Talk like that isn’t going to help. We need to make the world a safer place.

Me: Ha, if Hillary gets elected the world might just become a radioactive wasteland.

Customer: I haven’t heard any such thing on the news.

Me: Yeah, all the news does is focus your attention on what they want you to focus on. Take for instance this nonsense about Trump’s treatment of women. Hillary is making a big deal about Trump’s treatment of women yet she remained uncharacteristically silent when her husband was doing far worse. But you don’t hear diddly squat about that from the media; do you?

At this point the other customer removed her items from the belt; put them back into her cart, and went to another line to pay. All in all it made my day quite worthwhile. After all, it isn’t everyday you get to annoy someone with the truth to the point they flee from it.

As I lay in bed last night trying to fall asleep this conversation kept repeating itself in my head; as if it was attempting to tell me something important. When I awoke this morning I had the rough outline of an idea, and after a few sips of coffee it had germinated into what I am about to say.

You see, the cashier at WalMart is not the only person I’ve heard say that Duterte is violating human rights, and that Obama was right to call him on it. Does not the Bible say, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

How is it that we Americans are so ready to condemn violations of the rights of people halfway around the globe by their rulers, yet we are blind to the violations of our rights by our own government?

You say, ‘Oh, but our government is not killing Americans like these other leaders are.’ Is that so; tell that to the family of Lavoy Finicum, the Weavers, or the families of the Branch Davidians. Ask yourself why our government, in its war on terror, has according to statistics, killed roughly 120,000 non combatants in Iraq; what we casually call collateral damage.

Oh yeah, America isn’t killing anybody. Keep believing that and I have some property on the Moon for sale too.

What is it about us Americans that gives us the right to tell the rest of the world how to act; how to send our military all over the damned place to police the world? Really, I would like for you the take a minute or two and think about what it is that gives America the right to do these things.

Is it because we have this splendid Constitution and magnificent Bill of Rights? If that is the case why do we continually vote for candidates whom we allow to overstep the limits placed upon the power they hold by that Constitution? If that is true why do we allow our government to trample all over the rights protected by the Bill of Rights? If these things are so splendid why aren’t we fighting our asses off to see that they are upheld? Hmmm? I’m waiting for an answer…

Or is it that we are just arrogant; thinking that we are better than everyone else and can push our weight around?

I need to tell you another story now; this time it is something that happened while I was in the Air Force stationed in Spain. I worked with this guy from New York who thought he was Joe Cool with the ladies. He met this girl and asked me to come over and translate his English into Spanish so she could understand. The following conversation ensued.

Joe Cool told me to tell her he thought she was very pretty; which I translated and told her. She said thank you, to which I translated and told Joe Cool. Then Joe told me to tell her he wanted to take her out on a date; which I told her. She asked me to ask him where he wanted to take her. I asked and he said he would take her to a nice restaurant and then back to his apartment. I said, No, you don’t want to tell her that. These girls are traditionally very religious and old fashioned. They don’t go to guys apartments on first dates. Joe told me to just tell her; so I did. She didn’t seem to get phased about it, instead she asked me to ask him what he wanted to do at her apartment. So I asked Joe. He told me to tell her that he wanted to make sweet love to her. I held up my hands and said no way, I’m not telling her that. He got mad and said TELL HER. So I did. She got red in the face and told me to tell him to go away. When I told him he got mad at me and said I must have said something different from what he had said and he stormed off.

After he had left the girl asked me, plain as day in English, “Are all Americans idiots like that?” I said, ‘You speak English?’ She said yes, but only if someone makes an effort to speak my language first. You said exactly what he told you to say, and he is an idiot.

You see, I ran into that type attitude a lot while overseas. I saw many Americans who felt that they did not have to make an effort to learn the native language of the country they were stationed in. I saw it in the Philippines, in Italy, Spain, and Korea as well. Plus they came over to these countries with this America is better than you are attitude and it did not sit well with the people they encountered. It wasn’t always that way, but it was enough to leave a bad taste in the mouth of the people of other countries. It also helped fuel that Yankee go home attitude they held towards the U.S.

So what is it about America that we think we have the right to go around telling the leaders of other countries how to run their country, yet at the same time we get bent out of shape when the leaders of other countries criticize how America is being run? Are we truly that hypocritical? Are we that blind to all our own faults that we can only see the faults in others? This is something that has bothered me for quite some time now.

But you see, it doesn’t simply end here. Just as dreams are sometimes nonsensical, so was the idea for this article; shooting off in different directions. Although the customer I pissed off at WalMart did not come right out and say it, I got the impression she was a Hillary supporter; some sort of globalist who felt that socialist programs were the cure for all the world’s evils. Hence, my brain, in the half wake, half sleep condition it was in, went off on different tangents at the same time.

Are you aware that of all the countries on the planet, America only comprises roughly 5% of the world’s population? Are you also aware that although we only account for 5% of the people on the planet, America can make the claim of having 25% of the population of people serving time in prison?

The prison industry is one of the leading industries now in the United States. Bet you didn’t know that either. Bet you didn’t know that the construction of and then the hiring of people to staff these prisons accounts for a large part of what remains of our once booming economy. Yet still, in California they can’t keep up with all the people we put into our prisons. Recently Governor Gerry Brown had to release some felons back into society due to prison overcrowding.

Could it be that America is becoming more criminally inclined? Or is it that our government is passing so many laws, criminalizing so much behavior that it is creating a situation where we cannot walk down the street without violating a half dozen or so ordinances and committing a felony or two?
Then, as my mind is apt to do when half awake, half asleep, I pondered the fact that the cities with the highest levels of crime are also the cities that are predominantly Democrat. Just in my own State, Oakland, Stockton and Los Angeles all have extremely high rates of crime. While it is true that they also have more people than the more urban areas, the crime rate in these typically Democratic cities is disproportionally higher than their urban counterparts.

This trend holds true across the country. Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, Cleveland, St Louis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, and New York City are among the leaders in our nation in regards to crime rates. Yet they are also cities that have been governed by Democrats for quite some time now; often going back to the 1940’s since the last time Republicans represented the people of these States.

I’m not saying the Republicans are any better at upholding the Constitution and respecting our rights, but I am saying there is something to the mentality of Democrats that causes crime to breed within the areas they control.

Also, don’t get me wrong and think that I’m saying that everyone who is a Democrat is a criminal; I’m not. But there is a mentality that some Democrats have that leads them to believe that if someone has something that others need, then it is the obligation of those who have to give to those who are in need.

After all, how many times have you heard Democratic candidates preach that the rich must pay their fair share? Why is that? Do the rich also, because they pay more, deserve more in return from government? After all, if you go into a store with $10 and someone else goes into the store with $1000, who do you think is going to walk out of the store with more merchandise? Why should the rich be required to subsidize a larger percentage of the population than the middle class, or the poor. As far as that goes, why should any segment of society be required to subsidize the existence of any segment of society?

You show me, an clear wording, the exact place in the Constitution where it says that the government is obligated to create jobs, provide the people with a retirement fund or health care, provide them with a financial safety net if they lose their job, or bail them out if they make bad business decisions.

I’ll wait while you do that search…

Couldn’t find it, or did you even bother looking? And don’t give me that general welfare of the people crap either. James Madison, the mover and shaker whose idea it was to abolish the Articles of Confederation and replace them with a much stronger central government didn’t believe that for a minute. In fact, Madison said the following in a veto message for subsidies to Cod Fishermen, “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.”

You see, the modus operandi of the Democrats is to divide and conquer by creating class and racial divisions in this country. The followers of Democratic candidates are told that society is to blame for all their problems and therefore society owes them and should be taxed to subsidize their existence. This creates a dependency upon government and anyone who even suggests that these programs be cut back, or terminated, is told they are heartless, and don’t care about those in need.

Look at the violence directed towards Trump supporters, often instigated by plants from the Democratic Party itself, to make Trump supporters appear to be mean and cold hearted towards the poor or minorities. I’m not standing up for Trump here, I’m only showing the modus operandi of the Democrats, and how their tactics are not aimed at uniting us, but keeping us divided. In short, they stand for everything that is in opposition to a truly United States of America; they are pure evil, and Hillary Clinton is their current poster child. In fact, she may be the fruition of years of work and may be the final nail in the coffin to our once free Republic.

We have become so divided that Trump has said the system is so rigged he will not accept the outcome of the election should he lose. I’ve heard everything from Hillary supporters from people like Rosie O Donnell saying she will leave the country if Trump wins to people tweeting that they will riot in the streets if Trump wins.

I have also seen firsthand how customers will pack their shit back into their cart and move to another aisle when someone threatens their views with the truth.

Make no mistake about it, I’m not portraying the Republicans as the party who can fix America; they are guilty of caving in to Obama while they’ve had a majority in both houses of Congress for years now. Plus they are the party that gave us the Patriot Act and all these other violations of our rights to fight our war against terror.

I am saying that there is something about Democrats that runs counter to all that this country was founded upon; integrity, hard work, self-reliance, all these are things the Democrats despise because it would mean they have no reason to exist as a viable political party.

You will not hear a Democrat stand up and quote Teddy Roosevelt, who once said, “If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs.”

The way I see it we’re screwed no matter what. The Democrats are evil and stand for everything our Founders opposed. The Republicans are only slightly better, telling us they stand for conservative values, while often allowing the Democrats to run wild with their programs without putting up any kind of fight to stop them; or enacting programs of their own which overstep the due limits to their powers and violate our rights.

As long as the people of this country hold fast to their respective political parties, and the shills they spit out for us to vote for, nothing will get better in America. If we want change, and change for the better, we need to go backwards; not in the way Trump talks about, but backwards towards a limited government that is bound by the specific powers given it by the Constitution. These half measures and voting for the lesser of two evils is only going to lead us further down the pathway to absolute tyranny and oppression; and the sooner people realize that the better.

I know this may have been all over the place with the ideas I’ve discussed, but that’s just how my mind works sometimes; a whole bunch of ideas pinging around inside my skull at the same time. Inside my head it all makes perfect sense, but when I put it into words it often gets jumbled and confusing.

Anyway, just thought I’d share the conversation I had yesterday and the process my mind goes through to come up with these articles I write.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Shit’s Getting Real


I can’t believe what a circus this election has become. Just the other day I read how Madonna, the pop singer, promised to perform oral sex on all men who vote for Hillary. In her comments prior to an Amy Schumer standup concert Madonna stated, “One more thing before I introduce this genius of comedy…If you vote for Hillary Clinton I will give you a blowjob, OK?” To ensure that she was taken seriously, she continued by saying, “Swear to god…and I am good. I’m not a douche and I’m not a tool. I take my time…And I do swallow.”

What the hell kind of shit is this when a pop star gets on stage and promises oral sex in return for votes for the candidate she supports? But then it shouldn’t surprise me; after all, the people of this country are more upset over Trump’s grabbing some ‘pussy’ than they are the crimes Hillary Clinton has gotten away with. Sex sells, while the important issues take a back seat, or get left on the side of the road with no one paying any attention to them.

It makes me want to vomit blood; honestly, it does. I wonder what the people of the world think of us Americans and our ‘democratic’ process right now? They must be shaking their heads and laughing their asses off at us. Land of the free my ass. Try land of the buffoons instead.

You got people on both sides of the political spectrum supporting candidates who don’t know the first damned thing about the document which created the office for which they are running; and the people don’t care; all they care is that their candidate is better than the other one.

And the news media is nothing more than the ringmaster for this 3 ring circus; goading the people on, feeding them tidbits of gossip and information in an effort to lead them along like a pathetic herd of sheep. I sometimes wonder why I even bother trying to educate people, to save this country when it is obvious that nobody cares any more.

While the people of America are arguing with each other over the attributes of their candidate, I have been seeing signs of things to come in various news stories across the world wide web. Taken by themselves, each of these stories may be innocent enough; but put them together and a picture begins to emerge that does not bode well for America.

As I wrote about in my last commentary Hillary has accused the Russians of attempting to derail her bid for president. Putin himself came out and said that if we elect Trump there will be peace, but if we elect Clinton there will be war. While that, in and of itself, may simply be Putin, taken with other events there may be some truth to his warnings.

I’ll bet the evening news did not tell you that both Russia and China have been gearing up for a possible confrontation with the U.S. Reports say that both countries have been having extensive military exercise in preparation for a possible conflict with the United States, while Russian is said to be building a 400 square mile underground bunker in the Ural Mountains, capable of surviving a direct hit with the biggest of our nuclear weapons. On top of that, Putin has said due the America’s withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and its building of missile defense systems, America has restarted the Cold War. To counter, Russia has begun work on a new warhead, the Satan-2 which is said to be big enough to completely destroy an area the size of France. So basically, one of these weapons could wipe Texas off the face of the Earth.

Then there is the fact that Russia is telling its citizens living and studying here in America to return to Russia. While they say it is because it looks bad having the children of the Russian elite educated abroad, living amongst the enemy, it could very well be that they want their children safe and sound; away from the effects of any possible conflict that may arise.

Then there was this; just the other day newly elected Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte met with the leaders of China to forge a new alliance with the Chinese; while at the same time saying he is severing ties with the U.S. Ever since the end of World War II the Philippines has been our ally, after us having freed them from Japanese occupation.

Now, because our government, and Barack Obama in particular, have been telling Duterte how to run his country, the Philippines is given the U.S. the middle finger and finding new friends in the Chinese. In a statement to business leaders in Beijing, Duterte said, “America has lost now. I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow.” He has also, on numerous occasions, called Barack Obama a son of a whore.

So not only have we managed to make enemies of almost the entire Muslim world with our meddling in the politics of their countries, we are also alienating former allies and friends. Good job America!

On top of all that, as I saw on the news the other day the U.S. publicly stated, as per a news story I saw on NBC Nightly News, the U.S. is planning a massive cyber attack against Russia in response to its alleged hacking of computer systems and it’s interference in the presidential election. The White House has asked the CIA to come up with plans for an attack against Russia, and Putin himself in retaliation for their alleged interference in our election.

Then just this morning I read where a massive cyber attack shut down much of the internet yesterday and today; with many of the news media outlet websites being affected. Again, good job America; publicly announce on the news that you are planning a cyber attack on Russia; giving them plenty of time to possibly engage in a little preemptive action of their own. Brilliant strategy!

It’s not like our government doesn’t know what it is doing; it does and is planning accordingly. The only thing is, our safety or our survival doesn’t fit into their plans. They too have underground bunkers which are capable of surviving nuclear strikes and can sustain life for a very long period. Add to that the massive Jade Helm exercises which were run and which practiced scenarios such as civil unrest in the US and the confiscation of privately owned firearms, and we get a picture that the US is also gearing up for something; and has been for quite some time.

Any one of these stories, taken alone, would seem innocent enough. Put them all together though and it paints a frightening picture for the future of this country; and the world.

But that’s okay, you go ahead and worry about whether Trump grabbed a little pussy on the side, while Ms Clinton’s husband was getting oral sex in the Oval Office and shoving cigars into young interns.

After all, I don’t want to bother you with the trivial fact that should Hillary become our next president we may not have a country to hold elections in four years from now.

I’m not saying Trump is the better choice, as he is a bully and is likely to abuse his power when Congress doesn’t play ball with him. What I am saying is that there are more important issues at hand than whether or not Trump has mistreated, or spoken derogatorily about women.

The world we live in now is a powder keg waiting to go off. And a good number of people in this country are supporting a pyromaniac that likes to toss lit matches around. But hey, the U.S. has been in an almost perpetual state of war for decades now, what’s a World War to us when we are the big bad US of A, and nobody messes with us; right?

Just keep in mind something else Philippine President Duterte said on his trip to China, “And maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world: China, Philippines and Russia. It’s the only way.”

We might be big, we might be bad, but if war breaks out and China and Russia align against us, it’s all over for us. You can only hope you live within the direct blast radius of a nuclear weapon so your death comes quick and painless.

But that’s okay; you worry about whether Trump was inappropriate in his treatment of women and whether or not your team is gonna win the football game this weekend. Treat the election with the same seriousness you give a Reality TV show, or something you saw on one of those celebrity gossip shows like Access Hollywood. After all, those things are much more important than whether or not our country is on a direct track to World War III.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

How Anyone Can Vote For Hillary Is Beyond My Ability to Understand


Due to my work schedule I was unable to watch any of the presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. As I’ve made it evidently clear, I do not intend to vote for either candidate, however I would have liked to watch the debates to see how the media attempted to hide the glaring defects in both the character and record of Hillary Clinton.

Since I was not able to see the debates, all I have to go on are highlight clips and second hand reports from those who did watch the two candidates square off against each other. Last night at work someone came up and told me that Hillary had accused the Russians and Vladimir Putin in particular, of orchestrating the Wikileaks release of her e mails in an effort to derail her bid for the presidency.

Since I didn’t watch, I can neither confirm nor deny that she actually said that. However, I did read that Clinton campaign spokesperson Brian Fallon said the following about Wikileaks, “You are no media organization. You are a propaganda arm of the Russian govt, running interference for their pet candidate, Trump.” So it is conceivable that Hillary may have made that comment during last night’s debate.

I don’t know whether Putin, or the Russians were responsible for the e mail hacks that the Hillary camp is whining about. I did see a story on the news the other night about how the U.S. is apparently gearing up for a cyber attack upon the person of one Vladimir Putin in retaliation for them. Whether there is any validity to what the US claims is another story altogether; but I trust the media about as much as I trust a chimpanzee to do open heart surgery on me. In any case, it does not seem that these leaked e mails have had much of an effect on the Hillary faithful; they would probably vote for her if she produced a birth certificate listing Satan as her father.

I do know that the animosity between Ms Clinton and Putin goes back awhile. Hillary likened Putin to Adolf Hitler, and said that as a former member of the KGB he is probably lacking a soul. Harsh words coming from a woman who ought to look deep within hers own soul before she starts tossing comments like that around. I do know that if it ever becomes public knowledge that Putin did successfully derail Hillary’s bid for the White House I intend to send him a Thank You card in the mail.

I would like to think that Putin, if he did have anything to do with leaking these e mails, did not do it solely out of spite for Ms Clinton. I would like to think that in the back of his mind somewhere he realized that if Hillary is elected there was a good chance that Russia and the U.S. would go to war over Syria; and that by exposing Hillary for the criminal she is he was only trying to avert World War III.

People need to understand that Syria is an ally of Russia; just like Israel is our ally, (an alliance I am not personally in favor of). Just as America would defend Israel, Russia will defend Syria if attacked. Hillary has publicly stated that she wants the President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad gone, and that she would like to see a no-fly-zone established over Syria.

I would like to ask Madam Clinton, and the people of this country, what Article and Section of the Constitution authorizes a president of the United States to declare the airspace of a sovereign country a no-fly-zone. You see, Russia is currently running bombing missions; both against ISIS strongholds and the US backed rebels seeking to oust President Assad.

These two items tie nicely together to form my next point; the hypocrisy of Clinton crying foul that the Russians may have attempted to interfere with, or influence the outcome of a presidential election here in America. Boy does the former First Lady got a pair of balls; probably bigger than her husband Bill’s as far as that goes. She has a lot of nerve to complain about Russia interfering with our internal political process; as if the US is not guilty of doing exactly the same thing to other countries.

Our meddling in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations goes way back to the late 1800’s when US citizens living in Hawaii engineered the overthrow of the duly elected monarch, Queen Lili’uokalani in an effort to annex the Hawaiian Islands. The ultimate goal was to see Hawaii become a State; which it did in 1959.

How would we feel if the Russians, or the Chinese, living here in the US attempted to overthrow our duly elected leaders and make the US a part of their country? I bet we’d be pretty pissed off; that’s what I bet. Yet we did it in Hawaii; possibly due to Hawaii’s strategic location halfway across the Pacific Ocean. It’s a nice place to build a big old military base to forward stage any operations in the Pacific; that’s what it is. Just another way for the U.S. to expand its empire, is the way I see it.

We also colonized the Philippines for awhile, and I saw just today where the current Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte is forming an alliance with China; telling the U.S. to go F*ck itself; calling Obama a son of a whore for his meddling in the way he runs his country. Yeah, our foreign policy is working real well at keeping allies and making friends!

But those are not the only times the US has stuck its nose into the affairs of other sovereign nations. Most of the Clinton faithful, probably most Americans as far as that goes, do not remember what happened in 1953 with the joint CIA/British Intelligence led coup that forced out the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minster, Mohammad Mosaddegh. All this was done because of the fact that the Prime Minister had nationalized its oil fields, effectively shutting out the western interests who were posed to lose billions in profits.

To replace the legitimately elected Prime Minister, the US/British governments installed the Shah, Mohammad Reza who was much friendlier towards western business interests. On the flip side, the Shah ruled his people with an iron hand; jailing, torturing and murdering those who opposed his rule. Is it any wonder their still exists animosity in Iran towards the US? Yet our government and the news media have the gall to say that Iran is the bad guy in all this. Maybe Iran wouldn’t have hated us so much if we would have minded our own business.

Then there was the deployment of U.S. fighters to Lebanon in 1958 under Eisenhower’s Operation Blue Bat. To support the U.S. friendly regime of President Chamoun, the U.S. deployed fighter planes and troops to Lebanon to fight the possible spread Communism, and to halt the outside influence from countries such as Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Had the U.S. not been in Lebanon, the bombing at the Marine Barracks 25 yrs later would not have happened and 241 US servicemen would not have died.

Moving forward in time, we come to the Bay of Pigs fiasco during the Kennedy administration. Again, the U.S. stuck its nose into the affairs of another sovereign nation; this time Cuba. Once again, via the CIA, Cuban exiles were trained and funded, going by the name of Brigade 2506, in an effort to overthrow the regime of Fidel Castro. The effort failed after only 3 days of fighting, but once again showed the world the willingness of the U.S. to attempt to oust the leader of another sovereign nation who was unfriendly towards the US.

Years later, 1973 this time, the CIA, through Project FUBELT, orchestrated the overthrow of Chilean President Salvador Allende. Once again, the replacement, Augusto Pinochet was just as bad for the Chileans as the Shah was for Iranians. Pinochet is credited at disappearing over 3,000 political dissidents, imprisoning 30,000 more, while forcing into exile another 200,000.

Then of course there was Afghanistan and Operation Cyclone; another U.S. funded operation aimed at overthrowing the leadership of Afghanistan, while at the same time funding the Mujahadin who were fighting to rout the Soviets from Afghanistan. Although the Soviets gave up and left Afghanistan in 1989, funding for Operation Cyclone continued until 1992. From amongst these Mujhadin freedom fighters were the beginnings of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda with Osama bin Laden at the helm. Once again our intervention either ended up hurting the people of the country we meddled in, or it turned around and bit us in the ass later on.

And of course, we can’t forget the Contras, the terrorist group that was trained and funded by the U.S., and which became the subject of the evening news with the Iran/Contra hearings during the Reagan presidency. The Contras were used in an effort to destabilize the Nicaraguan government. This continued even after the democratic election which saw the Sandanistas win the election in 1984.

I think I have made it abundantly clear that our country is not above meddling in the internal politics of another country. So, for Hillary Clinton to sit atop her self-righteous pedestal and cry foul because Russia may be doing the same thing the US has been doing for decade’s reeks of hypocrisy. It’s a classic example of do as I say, not as I do, with the US being free to do whatever it wants, but we condemn the rest of the world for doing the exact same thing we do.

And Ms Clinton’s hypocrisy is not confined to her whining about these leaked e mails. Her campaign is now latched on to revelations of Donald Trump’s treatment of women, and the comments he made years ago. Yet the former First Lady of both Arkansas and the US remained deathly silent while her husband, Bill ‘Can’t Keep His Dick In His Pants’ Clinton, went molesting and screwing everyone from Paula Jones to a young intern named Monica Lewinski.

You see, not only did Ms Clinton not condemn the actions of her husband, she stood by him and attacked the character of many of the women who came out with charges of sexual misconduct against him. I guess Slick Willy was her ticket to the big leagues, and his mistreatment of women took second fiddle to her dreams of a chance at sitting in the Oval Office. Kind of shows the true nature and character of Ms Clinton; don’t you think?

Then of course there is all the other garbage hidden away in the Clinton closet; the Whitewater Scandal, Benghazi, and the list of nearly 70 dead bodies of those who posed a threat to the Clinton Crime Family. God help us if Chelsea ever gets involved in politics like her parents.

This lack of integrity on behalf of Hillary Clinton should be enough to dissuade anyone with an ounce of integrity from voting for her. But since it hasn’t seemed to phase the Hillary faithful I can only presume they have no integrity either. I suppose some people will sell their honor and integrity for the promise of benefits that Hillary Clinton offers them. It certainly says a lot about a large segment of America that this woman is running for president and not rotting away behind bars.

What gets me the most is those who say it is about time we had a woman president. With all the women in America today are you going to tell me that Hillary Clinton is the best you could come up with?

Even though a Hillary presidency scares the living hell out of me, there is a dark side to me that wants to see her win just to see who she blames for all the problems she will encounter. After all, it has been 8 years since a Republican was president, so it would be kind of hard for her to keep on blaming everything on Bush.

But then again, maybe she found a new scapegoat; if elected she intends to blame all her woes upon Vladimir Putin. Why not? After all, the people are getting awful tired of this war on terror. Why not start another Cold War, or better yet, an all out war with Russia. Keep the bankers happy, the military industrial complex happy, and give the government more reason to restrict our liberty.

It’s a win-win situation for all; except the people of America. But hey, if they’re stupid enough to vote for Hillary they deserve exactly what they get.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Mad As Hell


In an effort to show their magnanimity, their benevolence, and the fact that they have not lost touch with the people they represent, presidents often stage photo shoots with prestigious people, or those who have achieved something the people admire and respect them for. Why else would a president invite the winners of a sporting event to the Oval Office for a meet and greet when it has absolutely nothing to do with the running of the country?

Such was the case in 1962 when President John F. Kennedy invited forty-nine Nobel Prize winners to the White House. The Nobel Prize, in case you didn’t know, is an annual award given to those who have made significant advances, or achievements in fields such as peace, science, or academics. In other words, they are considered the best and the brightest of the world in their areas of expertise. What I find interesting is, not that the President invited these 49 prize winners to the White House, but what he said while they were there. President Kennedy is quoted as saying, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent and of human knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the White House ― with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

Thomas Jefferson is probably best known as being the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. Although that may be his crowning achievement, it is far from the only thing Jefferson did. Lesser known was his A Summary View of the Rights of British America, as well as his Notes on the State of Virginia. Jefferson also served as Secretary of State under George Washington, Vice-President under John Adams, and as our nation’s 3rd President.

Aside from his contributions to this country Jefferson was an avid botanist, an inventor, and quite the historian. As James Madison would say of him, “He was certainly one of the most learned men of the age. It may be said of him as has been said of others that he was a “walking Library,” and what can be said of but few such prodigies, that the Genius of Philosophy ever walked hand in hand with him.”

Jefferson not only was well educated, he was fluent in Greek, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish and English, of course. His library at his home in Monticello is said to have had thousands of books. When the Library of Congress was burnt during the War of 1812 Thomas Jefferson offered to sell a portion of his library to replace the books that had been lost. Eventually the Congress did purchase 6,487 volumes from Jefferson. So, aside from all the other things Jefferson was, he was an avid reader as well.

Putting aside technological and scientific advances, Thomas Jefferson was probably better educated, more knowledgeable than 95% of the people living in America today; and I’m being conservative with my numbers.

Why is it then that the people today show so little regard for the things one of the greatest political minds our country has ever produced said regarding government? Why is it that those today who quote Jefferson’s ideas are looked upon with scorn?

One cannot wonder whether it was providence that caused so many great thinkers to come together at one period in history; men who not only had radical thoughts regarding the nature of human rights, but in regards to the function government should serve; men who not only believed in these things, but were willing to lay down their lives in defense of their beliefs.

Look at the things these men said. The obvious first choice is the final words of the Declaration of Independence where Jefferson wrote, and the 56 delegates affixed their signatures to, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Then of course there were the immortal words of Patrick Henry, spoken on March 23, 1775, “Give me liberty or give me death.” And one cannot forget the words spoken by Nathan Hale as he was about to be hung by the British for treason, “I regret, that I have but one life to lose for my country.”

These men believed in the things they said down to the very core of their being; and they were all willing to die defending their beliefs. How many of you, be ye Republican or Democrat, can say the same about your beliefs? Hmmm?

If you were to study history there are two things you would notice. The first is that all forms of government eventually become corrupt and abuse the power given them. The second is that the leaders themselves never attempt to enforce the laws they enact.

Did King George III or members of Parliament come to America and attempt to disarm the Patriots at Lexington and Concord? No, they sent an army; minions who were simply following orders. Yet by that act, the Revolutionary War began. Yet today when, as was the case during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, our military and law enforcement combined to go house to house and do the same thing our Founders went to war to prevent from happening; they confiscated the privately owned firearms of the citizens remaining in and around New Orleans. Did George Bush come and take those guns? Did the governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco come take them? No, they sent minions who were simply following orders.

Why do I suddenly shift from my praise of Jefferson to the confiscation of privately owned firearms? Well, it is to show you that our government, and those of the States as well, no longer cares about the rights of the people they represent; they have, in fact, become corrupt engines by which tyrannical and oppressive laws are passed. Yet we the people do nothing about it aside from voting for more of the same every election cycle.

In 1821 Jefferson wrote concerning his fear that the government created by the Constitution was becoming the very evil the Founders had fought to free themselves from. In a letter to Nathaniel Macon, Jefferson states, “Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then corruption, its necessary consequence.”

That was written 195 yrs ago, forty years before the Civil War which saw Abraham Lincoln complete the consolidation of our Republic into an unbreakable Union ruled by a centralized government with their will, and will alone, being the ultimate decider of what powers it shall hold.

This goes against everything our Founders, and Jefferson himself believed in; limited government according to the rule of law. Jefferson himself decried the first abuses of powers by the government when he authored the Kentucky Resolutions, wherein he states, “… that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers…”

Yet here we are, ready to flock to the polls by the millions, hoping to bring about a restoration of our nation’s former glory by voting for the candidate we believe will best serve as president of these States united.

Although he was referring solely to our governments spending and borrowing policies, in his Inaugural Address Ronald Reagan told us what is wrong with America today, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Instead of having the courage to face the fact that it does not matter who you cast your vote for, government will continue to increase in size, and consequently restrict your liberty even further, we place all our eggs in one basket, so to speak, and hope that by electing the ‘right’ candidate for president we can prevent, or at least stave off, the eventual downfall of our country.

It is insidious how effective they have been in brainwashing people to believe that the only answer to the problems created by government is…MORE GOVERNMENT! I have yet to decide whether our Founders are all gathered in heaven laughing at how stupid we have become, or if they are hanging their heads in sorrow.

We have forsaken everything this country once stood for. Almost 30 years before Jefferson set pen to paper to write the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams published a letter in the Public Advertiser, where he declared, “[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”

This voting for the lesser of two evils has got to stop if we want to have any hope for our future. Voting for evil, no matter how small it is, is still a vote for evil. Is that what we have become, a nation who is willing to accept a lesser degree of evil rather than have the courage to stand for what we truly believe in? If so, I pray for our future.

You see, there is something else Jefferson said, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (A Summary View of the Rights of British America)

If God cannot abide evil in any form, do you honestly believe that He will open heaven to those of us who accept it in those we elect to protect and defend the liberty He has given us?

I fully understand that by my not voting Hillary Clinton may win the election. But I absolutely refuse to participate in the process of choosing one evil over another just to prevent the worse evil from winning. At some point one must take a stand and say NO MORE!

I honestly believe that a great many Americans, who mistakenly consider themselves patriots, would be willing to surrender all their freedoms if they were provided with a job, own a home, and have the ability to choose from the hundreds of channels of garbage on the television to watch. As long as their government kept them safe, and provided them with the benefits they believe themselves entitled to, I believe most people would willingly accept servitude.

And to them I would repeat the words of Samuel Adams, “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.”

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Forget Relativity: Let’s Talk About Einstein’s Theory of Insanity


The name Albert Einstein has become almost synonymous with genius, yet very few people know much about the man other than having heard of his theory on special relativity; E=mc2. Along with over 300 scientific papers, Einstein also published 150 non-scientific papers, and is known to have made many interesting quotes. Among those attributed to him is, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Using that definition, wouldn’t you say that the American people are insane? Every four years the people get all fired up about who will become the next president of these States united, and then once the winner is sworn in the people go back to their lives to repeat the process in four more years. But does anything really change? Sure, taxes may go up or down; the economy may improve or decline, but the one question nobody seems to be asking is; does government increase in size or does it decrease in size? Another question you may want to ask yourselves is; do you have more freedom after four years of your choice for president, or less freedom?

Almost 230 yrs ago Patrick Henry stood before the Virginia Assembly that was arguing whether to adopt or reject the proposed Constitution for these States united. Henry warned the delegates, “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.”

Then there was James Wilson; one of only a half-dozen or so men whose names appear on both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Having been in attendance at the formalizing of two of our nation’s founding documents do you not think his words ought to carry some weight when attempting to understand the purpose for which our government was established? Wilson is quoted as saying, “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.”

The problem, or insanity as I see it, is that the people of this country are stuck in this rut of choosing between either a Republican or a Democrat candidate; and that covers the entire spectrum of offices for which people seek, from State and local offices all the way up to the presidency.

I would like to interject a story from my past now to provide a metaphor for what is to follow. When I was in the Air Force I was stationed at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. On my days off, my buddies and I would go to the beach to drink beer, swim, and watch girls. One day we were playing Frisbee in the water and the Frisbee kept getting tossed over my head. I’d have to back up a few steps to retrieve it; placing me in ever deeper water. When I got to water that was shoulder height, the next time the Frisbee sailed over my head I swam out to get it; only to find out there was no bottom to put my feet upon. I had swam out past the drop off point and found myself caught in an undertow. Luckily I knew that you do not try to swim straight back to shore; that you swim at an angle almost parallel with the shore until you can touch the bottom again. But for awhile there I thought I was going to die, and when I did get back to shore I was exhausted.

How does that apply to the subject at hand? Well, let’s find out.

Our Constitution was written in 1787 and sent to the States for their consideration. In 1789, after having been ratified by the required number of States, it went into effect and our government opened its doors for business.

I do not know what people think our Constitution is, but the truth is that it is both an instruction manual on what form our government shall take, and the powers granted it, and a law which when the government it creates violates, the people have the right to exercise their power contained within the Declaration of Independence to ‘alter or abolish’ government.

For awhile things went well under this new Constitution; but that was not to last. Upon the election of our second President, John Adams, laws were enacted which many felt overstepped the limits granted government by the Constitution, and infringed upon the rights of the States. Chiefly among those laws were the Alien and Sedition Acts.

You have to understand the period in which these events took place to understand how they relate to the things that are happening today. When George Washington was elected as our first President he was not a member of any political party. His popularity as having been the Commander of the Army that defeated the British in the Revolution was enough to cause the people to support him.

Washington himself warned of the dangers of political parties, saying, “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.”

Even John Adams, who would win the presidency on the Federalist platform, once said, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

To understand the poison that political parties are to our Republic you have to know the origin of the two parties we know today; the Republicans and the Democrats. The birth of these parties can be traced back to the very beginning of our government and the visions held by two men; Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson viewed the federal government as one being confined strictly by the powers granted it by the Constitution; with the States retaining much power and authority. Hamilton, on the other hand, felt the Constitution left many powers as being implied, and that the federal government should be much stronger than those in the States.

This is the origin of the terms conservative and liberal, with conservative being a strict adherence to what the Constitution says, and liberal being a looser interpretation of the powers granted government. Now, can you honestly tell me that either party today pays any attention whatsoever to the limits imposed on government by the Constitution? If you answer yes, then obviously you have not read the Constitution yourself.

Getting back to John Adams, when he signed the Alien and Sedition acts his Vice-President, Thomas Jefferson, was so upset he went behind Adams back and authored the Kentucky Resolutions, while the young Congressman James Madison wrote the Virginia Resolutions. Both were in opposition to what the two men felt were unconstitutional assumptions of power by the government.

In his Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson declares, “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; . . . and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorised by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories.”

What it all boils down to is this; what did our Constitution create; a confederation or a consolidation? A confederation is one in which the member/states of the union retain much of their power and authority; while granting only specific powers to the central government. A consolidation, on the other hand, is one in which the union of the states is but one entity, with a central government being supreme and sovereign over all.

Upon examination of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, one would get the impression that a confederation was established; with the States being co-equal sovereigns and having their say in what laws should be passed by their representatives in the Senate. Plus there was the 10th Amendment which declared that the powers not granted government were reserved to the States or to the People.

The problem is that the government created by the Constitution began seeing itself as all powerful and above those it represented; both the States and the People. This went against what Jefferson believed, and stated in his Kentucky Resolutions.

The infractions upon States Rights continued to increase until they became unbearable by a segment of the Union; the Southern Cotton States. It was at this point in time that, just like my adventure swimming off the coast of Florida that the bottom dropped out of our Constitutional Republic.

All the Southern States did was exercise their prerogative as described in the Declaration of Independence, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

That’s all they did.

Seven States decided to leave the Union and form their own nation with its own system of government. However, Abraham Lincoln felt that the Constitution granted him the authority to use force to compel the seceded States into remaining a part of the Union; so he raised an army to invade these so-called rebels.

It was at this point that 4 more States, who felt that by Lincoln raising an army to invade another sovereign nation that he had overstepped his Constitutional authority, and therefore, they also seceded and joined the Confederacy.

Thus began the Civil War and our Republic has never been the same since the South lost.

Gone was the concept of a State’s right to nullify acts of the federal government. It was to be replaced with the concept that whatever laws the federal government passes, the States must obey. Gone too was the party of Jefferson, which favored a strict adherence to the limits imposed by the Constitution upon government.

All this was replaced by a government “…of the people, by the people, for the people.” (Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address) Does that not sound strikingly similar to what Patrick Henry warned us about in his speech opposing the Constitution, “The fate of this question and of America may depend on this: Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America.”

For over 150 yrs now we have not had a Constitutional form of government. People today vote for the best candidate their party has to offer, never once asking considering if anything that candidate says they intend to do is in accordance with the powers granted government by the Constitution.

Not once!

George Washington once said, “The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon.” The people today may as well say, “The Constitution is the guide which I will never pay attention to.” Instead they keep voting back and forth between Republicans and Democrats, never stopping to realize that neither party gives a damn about the limits imposed on the power granted the government.

The two parties may run on opposing platforms, but both platforms end up providing us with bigger government, more regulations we must obey, and a further diminishing of our liberty. This country is like a large drunk man staggering towards a cliff. First the right leg, then the left leg; back and forth, over and over again; never stopping to think that he needs to turn around and go back to where he began.

And that is why I have to ask; have the people of this country gone insane; because if you ask me they are living up to Einstein’s definition of insanity to a T.

Posted in General | Leave a comment


In case you weren’t aware, the first ten amendments to our Constitution do not grant us any rights; they only list certain pre-existing fundamental rights that are exempted out of the power of government to limit or restrict. By pre-existing I mean that these rights were in existence prior to the formation of our government, and therefore since government did not create them; government cannot limit them.

The first of these constitutional amendments protects not one, not two, not three even; but four rights: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It is the second of these rights that I would like to take a few minutes addressing.

Speech is the means by which human beings communicate with each other. Whether the communication is a simple greeting, or the discussion of complex theories, speech is what allows individuals and groups to communicate with each other.

Freedom of speech, simply stated, is the freedom to state what’s on your mind without fear of retribution. If you take the freedom of speech away, then all the lessons learned by those who lived before us would not be passed from generation to generation.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right because without it the people would become unable to criticize the actions of their government; making them a nation of mindless drones who obediently follow orders. It matters not that the ideas being discussed are controversial, or offensive even, the right of people to freely speak their mind is a fundamental right, and neither government nor society can tell someone they must remain silent simply because others do not like what is being said. To show the importance our Founders gave freedom of speech, it is best that they hear it from the words of George Washington, “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

In America today there is this insidious idea that freedom of speech only extends to ideas that others do not find offensive. People today want to live in a touchy feely world where no one’s feelings get hurt. This isn’t something new; it’s been going on for awhile now. Winston Churchill, who served as Prime Minister of Britain from 1940-1945, once said, “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”

From personal experience I have found that a great many people are of the belief that they are free to espouse whatever cockamamie idea that crosses their minds; but if someone calls them on it, or provides evidence to contradict them, then the truth comes under attack and the provider of the truth is punished for speaking it.

How can you say we have freedom of speech; when certain people get to say whatever they want, but contradictory beliefs are silenced because people find them uncomfortable, offensive? That’s censorship; pure and simple.

When you allow a majority, or a specific class or group of people, decide what can and cannot be said you have violated the 1st Amendment and severely restricted freedom of speech. One should be very careful when climbing aboard the bandwagon that seeks to limit the free expression of ideas, as one day they could find that their freedom of speech has come under attack. As Thomas Jefferson so perfectly stated, “It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.”

I’ve lost track of the times I’ve been told that something I said/ wrote/or brought in for people to see, has offended someone else. Most recently it was in regards to a graphic I brought in which stated something along the lines of, “What are we waiting for? Our Founders would be shooting by now.” Due to the climate that now pervades America in regards to gun violence, my graphic was deemed threatening by someone, so they turned me in. These people find the things I say offensive.

What I find offensive is my right to speak what’s on my mind without coming under attack by a bunch of thin skinned pussies who can’t handle the things I write about!

Not only do I find the restriction of my freedom of speech offensive, I find cowardice offensive. Instead of confronting me face to face and asking what I meant by the things I say, they turn tail and run to someone in a position of authority to silence me for them.

In response to all those who find the things I say I would like for you to read something the English actor Stephen Fry said, “It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more…than a whine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what.”

I swear to God, I’m going to start carrying a barf bag around; because you people make me sick to my stomach! If your belief systems are so flimsy that you need protection from opposing ideas, then maybe it’s high time you re-evaluated your beliefs. If you can’t handle the truth; historical fact, and ideas that challenge your precious beliefs, then maybe the problem is not with the person challenging your beliefs; the problem is with YOU, or YOUR BELIEFS.

I’m man enough to admit when I’m wrong; especially when someone provides overwhelming evidence to prove it. Can you make the same claim? I can back up most everything I say with historical facts that prove beyond a doubt that what I’m saying is the truth. Can you do the same for the things you say?
Yet you want me to shut up simply because you don’t like the things I say? Sorry, ain’t gonna happen. I’m all for open honest debate, but for that to happen you must come armed with facts and evidence to back up your views; not just talking points you gathered from the news and your elected officials. I want historical fact and evidence to prove beyond a doubt that what you are saying holds water before I will even give your beliefs any credence.

But don’t you dare tell me to shut up simply because you don’t like what I’m saying!

In closing I’d like to leave you with a single graphic that is bound to offend. But hey, if it does then maybe it’s because the truth does hurt.


Posted in General | Leave a comment



I believe there has been a bit of a misunderstanding by those who’ve read my recent commentaries and my statement that I do not intend to vote in this upcoming election. The fault is probably mine as I did not make clear that I was not going to vote for whom will serve as our next president. I will, however, go to the polls and cast my vote for sundry different ballot measures; one of which is the subject of this article: Proposition 63.

In a nutshell, Prop 63, if passed, will require that individuals obtain a 4 year permit from the California Department of Justice before they will be allowed to purchase ammunition. It will also toughen the ban on large capacity magazines.

It should therefore come as no surprise to anyone who knows me that I intend to vote NO on this ballot measure.

If you were to go to the Prop 63 webpage, as I did, and scroll down to the list of names of those who support and those who oppose Prop 63, you might find it a bit more enlightening as to whom supports this measure, and the agendas they support.

For instance, among those who support the passage of Prop 63 are none other than Dianne Feinstein, the rabidly anti-gun Senator from California, and her lesser known sidekick Barbara Boxer. Also supporting Prop 63 is Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, the former mayor of San Francisco.

Also supporting this measure are the typical gaggle of anti-gun groups such as; the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition Against Gun Violence, Santa Barbara, and a host of others. What I find interesting though is those who oppose passage of Prop 63.

Among those opposing Prop 63 are 3 sheriffs, and the California Police Chiefs Association.

Prop 63 is nothing, if it is not a knee jerk reaction to recent shootings within the Golden State. It is a reactive response to past events that does nothing to address the underlying reasons why so many people have chosen to pick up a gun and go out and kill others; the degradation of our morals as a society and the corresponding loss of value shown for a human life. It does nothing to solve these underlying issues, and instead focuses on punishing millions of law abiding citizens, by making them jump through another hoop just to be able to exercise a fundamental right.

The people of the State of California, and of the country to a lesser extent, have no understanding of the reason why we have a 2nd Amendment. All they are capable of thinking is; Oh, another shooting. Let’s pass tougher gun laws. They do not understand that it is our right to be armed, and no law can be passed which limits or restricts that right.

If a group of people decided to get together an propose a ballot measure which banned televisions, or automobiles, how do you think the average person would react? You can bet your ass that they’d cry how they have the right to own these things. Is that so, it’s a right is it? Can you show me where it says you have the right to own a TV, or a car?

You say you can’t; you just know it’s your right? Hmm, well I can show you exactly where it says it is my right to keep and bear arms, and it also says that right shall not be infringed.

People simply do not know their history, nor do they care for that matter. If they know anything at all about the American Revolution, it is that it was fought over the issue of Taxation Without Representation. For most, that is the extent of their knowledge concerning the period which gave birth to our nation, and its system of government. Sadly, they know even less about the nature of their rights; and it is due to this inadequacy of knowledge that causes them to support measures which are clear violations or infringements if you will, of their rights.

While Taxation Without Representation may have been spoken of during the period leading up to our war for independence, it was not until agents of the government, (The Redcoats), attempted to disarm the people at Lexington and Concord that the fighting started. Prior to that the Kings men had also attempted to limit the colonists ability to obtain both powder and ball, (what we today call ammunition). After all, what good is a gun if you have no bullets?

The news media, being the ministers of propaganda that they are, will not tell you that it is your God-given right to be armed for the defense of your life, your property, and yes, your liberty as well. Any attack upon those three things can be considered an act of aggression, and may be responded to accordingly.

Our rights predate our government; that is they have been in existence since man first made his appearance on this planet. Therefore, if government is a creation of man, then it cannot be assumed that man would create an entity, or agency, whose sole purpose was the restriction of their natural rights. In fact the Preamble to our Constitution declares that one of the purposes for which our government was created was to secure the blessings of liberty to the people. Liberty is nothing more than the full enjoyment of all our rights.

Founder James Wilson declared, “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.”

I don’t know how many times I must say this, but our Founders did not include the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights so that people could hunt, target shoot, or defend their homes. They included it so that the people could defend their liberty.

As the jurist St. George Tucker declared, “This may be considered the true palladium of liberty …. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: In most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

It’s bad enough when we have a government which actively seeks to restrict our rights. But then we have the people themselves calling for measures which further restrict our right to keep and bear arms.

It’s bad enough in this State already with all the insane gun laws they have passed in an effort to keep people safe. I have heard ad nauseum the arguments laid forth by those who say that our Founders could not have foreseen the technological advances which have led to these modern day assault rifles, and that there should be restrictions on who should be allowed to own them.

Had the 2nd Amendment been ratified in the 13th Century, when China first invented gunpowder, I can almost imagine the people saying that the 2nd Amendment does not protect our right to own any guns, because those who wrote it could not have foreseen the technological advances which lead to the production of firearms.

You’re right, the 2nd Amendment does not say assault rifles; in fact it does not say rifles at all. It merely says it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Arms, to get down to basics are merely implements of war. An arm could be a broadsword, a bow and arrow, or a firearm; the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to own and carry any of them for their defense.

We must obtain a background check by our government before we can purchase a firearm. We must obtain a permit to be allowed to carry that firearm on our person for self-defense. Now they want to require that we pass a background check just to buy the bullets for those guns.


I think it should be the other way around. After all, our rights are inherent and unalienable and we should not need permission from government to exercise them. On the other hand, government is an entity created by man, given certain powers to do certain things. I think it is they who should need permission from the people they serve to buy guns, use them to enforce the laws they pass, and yes, buy bullets for them. Why don’t we pass a ballot measure which requires that for every firearm, or ammunition purchase, the government must first submit their request to the public for its consideration? Let us decide whether THEY can have guns and ammo.

Across the land our State Legislatures, and the federal government, routinely enact laws which violate our right to keep and bear arms. Since the 2nd Amendment is not specific in what constitutes an arm, all arms are covered by its protection. Yet we have Congress passing assault weapons bans, and the nine black robed tyrants saying that the 2nd Amendment may be limited or restricted.

In Jefferson’s draft of the Kentucky Resolutions he states, “…that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers…”

How dare our government passing laws which bind us, while at the same time allows them to arm standing armies with weapons the people are prohibited from owning. HOW DARE THEY?

In the case of Burdeau v McDowell, Justice Louis D. Brandeis ruled, “At the foundation of our civil liberties lies the principle that denies to government officials an exceptional position before the law and which subjects them to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen.”

Our rights are sacred and off limits to the will of government, or a majority of the people. This fact was made quite clear in the case of West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, when Justice Robert Jackson ruled, “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

If that isn’t enough to convince you, try this on for size. Writing in 1789, Albert Gallatin states, “The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals …. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.”

Yet today, if government passes a law which further restricts our right to keep and bear arms, then the ever obedient law enforcement agents will gladly enforce these laws; never once considering that they are no less the agents of a tyrant than the Redcoats who marched upon the people of Lexington and Concord.

Add to that all the federal agencies that are all better equipped, and more willing to use force to compel obedience to the dictates of government, and we have a standing army whose sole purpose is to keep the people in line.

Of these goon squads, none is worse in restricting our right to keep and bear arms than the BATF, or Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. In 1980, Representative John Dingell said this about the BATF, “If I were to select a jack-booted group of fascists who are perhaps as large a danger to American society as I could pick today, I would pick BATF [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms].”

With a myriad of government agencies, ready at the drop of a hat, to enforce the edicts passed by their masters, and the ever ready law enforcement community who is willing to lend its support in suppressing the liberty of the people, we have a standing army in place that rivals the most tyrannical history has ever written about.

And yet to speak such things is almost considered blasphemous. Oh, but we must support our troops, or we must support law enforcement! To which I respond, ONLY if they support the Constitution. The moment they forget that sacred responsibility, and choose to enforce the will of tyrants, they have declared war upon me, and my rights, and as Locke states, “…whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.”

Writing in the South Carolina Gazette, August 2, 1774, a Carolinian could very well have been writing about the America of 2016, “With all the plausible Pretenses to Protection and Defence, a standing Army is the most dangerous enemy to the Liberties of a Nation that can be thought of. It is much better than with a well regulated Militia, to run the Risk of a foreign Invasion, than, with a standing Army, to run the risk of Slavery…When an Army is sent to enforce Laws, it is always an Evidence that either the Lawmakers are conscious that they had no clear and indisputable Right to make those Laws, or that they are bad and oppressive.”

I know just as sure as my hair is falling out and turning grey that nothing I say is going to make the voters of California change how they feel on the issue of gun control, and the 2nd Amendment. All I can do is issue a reminder to them; remember your history.

Our Founders tolerated much in the way of oppression before they sought to free themselves from tyranny. The one thing they would not tolerate was their government trying to disarm them. That was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

Keep that in mind as you push for further and further restrictive laws on gun ownership.

You may have forgotten the lessons of history, but we haven’t. We will not be disarmed, and we will not go quietly into servitude just because the public asks politely. We remember Lexington and Concord, and so should you before you push us into a corner where our only option is to fight or live as slaves.

lexingtonbattleRemember Lexington & Concord Before You Repeat The Mistake of King George III

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Damn Right I’m A Rebel


Why do you vote? It’s a simple question; four words, that at first glance, seems innocuous enough. Yet were I to ask people why they vote I’d most likely be rewarded with an answer. However, were I to ask people what they are doing when they vote; a well thought out answer might not be as forthcoming. Oh, they may say something like, “I’m choosing who the next president will be”, but that only shows that they did not give the question enough thought, as I’m trying to get people to understand that by their participating in the process of choosing whom will fill the seats of power in their government, they are lending their support for, and faith in, the system of government as a whole; they are consenting to the acts that government performs.

I fully realize that certain candidates may pose far more serious a threat to the future of this country than do others, however I stand fast in my decision not to participate in the election process; because should I choose to vote I would be declaring my faith in a system that is barely recognizable in comparison to the one described by our Constitution.

When a person goes to the polls and casts their ballot, they are putting their stamp of approval on government as a whole; good or bad. I do not approve of this government; I do not condone the things it does; and I certainly do not want to participate in choosing which fraud will become the next president to run it. I may be a slave under this government, but I damned sure do not want to participate in choosing who will be my slave-master.

When you go to the polls in just over a month, you should ask yourself why you are voting; if you haven’t asked yourself that already. Are you voting for your candidate to prevent the other one from winning? Are you voting for the person you intend to vote for because of the promises they made in their many speeches? Are you voting for a particular candidate because they have either an R or a D next to their name?

If you are voting for any of the above reasons you are voting for the wrong reason. First and foremost in your minds should be the question of whether the person you intend to cast your vote for will support and defend the Constitution. One has to but look back to the 2012 election cycle and recall how people called Ron Paul a nut case to see that the limits imposed by the Constitution on government mean nothing to the average voter. The Constitution is merely something the candidates pay lip service to. One look at the laws they enact while in office betrays their true nature as usurpers and tyrants.

It all boils down to a choice between participating in choosing candidates who will continue to exceed the powers granted government or in taking a stand for the principles one believes in. If you believe that government exists to provide you with all sorts of benefits and subsidies; if you believe that government exists to provide you with safety and security; then in your mind government is doing exactly what it was created to do. But if you believe the government was established to manage the general affairs of the nation; while leaving the people free to enjoy their liberty then government is NOT doing the job it was created to do. If that be true, then no matter how many times you change out the functionaries within government, everything that government does will continue to be a breach of the specific powers granted them.

Just as Ron Paul was shunned by the general public, I have found myself labeled all kinds of things from subversive to a possible threat to rebel or a domestic terrorist. If adhering to the principles held by men like Jefferson, Henry, Mason, and Adams is what defines one as a rebel, so be it. I much prefer the title of rebel over the title of a slave who meekly surrenders their rights for a few paltry benefits.

As Historian Charles Austin Beard so aptly said, “One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence.”

People just don’t seem to grasp the simple fact that our Constitution is not just some relic on display for public viewing; it is a law which is as binding today as it was the day it was written. Sometimes I think that the only way I can get people to understand this if I were to drill holes in people’s heads and stuff copies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights into their craniums.

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

You may still believe that we have a Constitutional Republic, but do we? If the acts undertaken by the government created by the Constitution do not adhere to the limits that document imposes upon government; is it truly a Constitutional Republic? If the government violates the law which governs its actions; what does that make those who rebel against such a government; rebels or patriots?

Let’s take a moment to pause while I familiarize you with two legal terms. The first is de jure; which means: a state of affairs that is in accordance with law. The second is de facto; which means: in practice but not necessarily ordained by law.

We currently have a de facto government; one that, for all outward appearances, looks like the one outlined by the Constitution. However, were one to compare the acts that government takes against the specific powers granted it by the Constitution they would see that our government acts outside the law; clearly exceeding its specific grant of power.

People today simply go about their lives believing that just because government enacts a law we are bound to obey it. The Constitution declares, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land…” For any law to have the authority to bind the people that law must be in accordance with the specific powers granted government; while at the same time not violate any of the rights protected by the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

Neither the government itself, nor the people it represents, can arbitrarily enlarge the powers granted government; for that to happen a Constitutional Amendment must be ratified; specifically stating what new powers the government shall hold.

This concept was best stated by George Washington, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

Yet people today convince themselves that they have a system of government described by the Constitution; the truth is that our government is a fraud; enacting laws which are not in accordance with the Constitution. The reality is that the majority of the laws enacted by our government only masquerade under the color of law.

There is a huge difference between something that is lawful and something which is done under the color of law. The color of law is often mistaken for law; but in reality it is only the acceptance of the people which gives these edicts any validity. Any law our government enacts which exceed its specific grant of power can only be enforced by the use of coercion and violence; the marks of tyrants. In reality these edicts, for I dare not call them laws, are null and void from the day they are enacted because the power to enact them was never granted government in the first place.

Did you know that the United States Code makes it a crime to enact any law under the color of law which deprives a person of a constitutionally protected right? That’s right, there is a law which can be used, if a prosecutor, judge, and jury had the balls to enforce it, which we could use to put every ass clown in D.C. in prison for violating.

This law is found in Section 242 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and states:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kdinap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

That’s the law folks; I didn’t pull this out of a hat, or make it up to impress you. Do you understand the implications of that; I mean really understand them? Not only can those in our government be charged with violating the law, so could any law enforcement officer who enforces an unjust, or unconstitutional law; specifically one which violates the rights of an individual.

I often find these meme’s on Facebook which say things like Support Local Law Enforcement. I would support them IF they supported the Constitution and my rights. My support for them is proportional to how well they respect my rights and the limits regarding what laws our government can lawfully enact.

Saying they are just doing their job, or just following orders does not cut it, not when in so doing they are violating the rights of the people they are there to serve and protect. I’m all for having cops around to protect us and solve crimes; but they cannot be above the law. If they can get away with enforcing the laws passed by a de facto government which violate my rights, then they are no better than jack booted thugs who are merely the enforcing arm of a tyrant; nothing better than the Redcoats under King George and the Gestapo and SS under Hitler.

Coming back full circle, it all boils down to what principles you vote for. If you want a government which routinely violates the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution, just to provide you with a few paltry benefits, or a bit of security, then don’t whine and complain when that same government decides that it’s will, and it’s will alone is the determining factor in what laws it will force you to obey.

It was our duty, our responsibility to vote for men and women of character and virtue to fill the seats of power in our government. We failed…miserably. Government today is too big, too powerful, for us to suddenly grow a conscience and hope for change at the ballot box. To continue to hope for change at the voting booth only shows that people do not realize the depth and width of the corruption our government encompasses.

It’s all about what people wanted from government. People wanted a government big enough to take care of them, provide for them. Well they got it; at the cost of their freedom to decide whether or not they want to obey the laws this behemoth of a government passes.

Yet I’m called a rebel because I refuse to play their game anymore. As they say in the opening credits of the Ridley Scott version of Robin Hood, “In times of tyranny and injustice, when the law oppresses the people, the outlaw takes his place in history.”

You’re damned right I’m a rebel; and proud of it. I’d rather be a rebel with his eyes open and some understanding of what freedom means than someone who continues to put their hope and faith in a system that has been broken since the Civil War.

Posted in General | 1 Comment