Neal's Soapbox

A few days back I wrote an article in which I discussed my belief that our government is unfit to exist, and that the Constitution itself is to blame for the out of control government we have today. As most of the things I write generate very few comments in response, it came as somewhat a surprise to have this one come under attack by the few who spoke out against what I had written.

One person, although they didn’t use this particular word, may as well have accused me of blasphemy for voicing any disrespect for the Constitution. I find that highly ironic, especially considering the fact that the person who said that has shown time and time again that they probably have never even read the bloody thing.

However, it was comments made by a couple of other people that I would like to spend a few minutes addressing today. A few people told me they realized that the Constitution was flawed, but then they added the caveat that if those we elect would just adhere to it then we could fix the problem of a government that does not stick to the few limited powers delegated to it, while at the same time preserving and protecting our rights and liberty.

I don’t mean to be insulting but that sounds like someone saying that even though a recipe for a meal is missing a few essential ingredients, if we would just follow it as written the food would end up tasting the way it is supposed to taste. If our Constitution is flawed, and if those flaws are serious enough, why do we insist on trying to vote ‘fresh meat’ into a system that was designed in such a manner as to produce failure and the loss of liberty it was proclaimed it was written to secure?

Again, I don’t mean to be insulting, but I sometimes think that the only Founding Fathers people today recognize are those whose images appear on the money they carry in their purses and wallets; even though the image on the $5 bill is NOT a founding father. There were 56 signatures on the Declaration of Independence, and I’d be willing to bet that most people only recognize two or three of them. The same goes for the Constitutional Convention; only a few of the names of those who attended that convention are readily recognizable by most people today. It’s almost as if some people believe that our country went from 13 British Colonies to the nation it is today solely because of the actions of a half dozen or so men.

There is a vast ocean of knowledge out there, just waiting to be explored, and most people prefer to sit comfortably on the beach watching the waves without ever exploring the wonders that exist below the surface. Therefore it comes as no surprise to me that the thoughts and opinions of someone like Melancton Smith or Robert Yates is paid very little attention, yet people fawn over whatever is said by someone like Barack Obama or Donald Trump. After all, who cares about what a bunch of guys who have been dead for over 2 centuries had to say?

Yet these men, our Founding Fathers, even the ones I despise such as Alexander Hamilton, had more political knowledge and insight in their pinkie toes than most Americans today have in their entire body. Yet people today have the sheer audacity to go around claiming to be politically informed just because they are up to date on current events – even though the majority of that information is sheer propaganda and media manipulation designed to shape and control your thought process rather than cause actual critical thinking.

It amazes me that someone can claim to be politically informed, yet they cannot, with any clarity of thought, explain the difference between a federal and a national form of government; or which one we have today. Try asking someone to explain what a true republican form of government is and most people can’t; yet Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution declares that each State shall be guaranteed one.

Like I said in another recent article, I don’t claim to be the smartest, or best informed person in the country, but I’m light years ahead of most people when it comes to understanding how our system of government was designed, and how it has strayed from what was promised to those who were tasked with deciding whether or not to adopt it. The difference between me and the vast majority of people in this country is that I recognize the fact that I know very little about these things, while most people are content to wallow in their own ignorance.

So when I discuss politics with most people I am speaking from a historical and factual position, while most are speaking from the position of having heard some politician say something that, to use the analogy, sounds good on paper. That is why campaign slogans and promises like Hope and Change, or Make America Great Again work so well; they lack any substance, but they stir up emotions and patriotic sentiments; causing people to flock behind those who utter them.

So when I say that the Constitution is flawed, although it angers me, it doesn’t come as much of a surprise to hear some people say that if we would just adhere to it we could fix the problems with our government. If you haven’t read the document itself, or read the positions taken by those who both opposed and supported it, or read the notes taken during the conventions that ultimately chose to adopt it, the only knowledge you have is what you have been told by others; and that is not sound foundation to base your entire belief system upon.

Before one can even attempt to dissect the Constitution, and discover its faults, one must first attempt to discern its intent; or the purpose this particular form of government was supposed to serve. Only then can you hope to come to an understanding of whether or not the plan outlined by the Constitution is capable of serving its intended purposes. Not only that, but that should be the sole determining factor in deciding whether or not you support whatever actions our current government undertakes…do they serve the purposes for which the Constitution was written to perform, or do they exceed those purposes.

The Preamble to the Constitution is a declaratory statement outlining the purposes for which the proposed document is intended to serve. There are five stated purposes which our Constitution was supposedly written to provide:

-Form a more perfect Union
-Insure domestic Tranquility
-Provide for the common defense
-Promote the general Welfare
-Secure Liberty

I could probably sit here until next week writing about each of those functions our government was supposed to serve, but for the sake of brevity, and the fact that I have to go to work in a few hours, I will confine my discussion to securing liberty.

Liberty, or the quest for it, is what drove our Founders to rise up against their existing government in 1776; to take up arms against their government and risk their lives to obtain. In his first essay to the people Melancton Smith writes, “I can consent to no government, which, in my opinion, is not calculated equally to preserve the rights of all orders of men in the community.” Smith then goes on, in 16 lengthy essays, to outline the deficiencies he sees in the plan for a system of government the people were then being asked to consider.

When the Commonwealth of Virginia held its State Ratifying Assembly, the Voice of Thunder, Patrick Henry, who loudly proclaimed to King George, “Give me liberty or give me death”, spoke of his concern over how quickly the love of liberty had faded from the hearts and minds of his countrymen, “Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so, I am contented to be so: I say, the time has been when every pore of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American.”

In his 4th essay under the pseudonym of Centinel, Samuel Bryan wrote a scathing condemnation of the Constitution, and those who were pushing for a quick adoption of it, “The evil genius of darkness presided at its birth, it came forth under the veil of mystery, its true features being carefully concealed, and every deceptive art has been and is practising to have this spurious brat received as the genuine offspring of heaven-born liberty. So fearful are its patrons that you should discern the imposition, that they have hurried on its adoption, with the greatest precipitation; they have endeavored also to preclude all investigation, they have endeavored to intimidate all opposition; by such means as these, have they surreptitiously procured a Convention in this state, favorable to their views; and here again investigation and discussion are abridged, the final question is moved before the subject has been under consideration; an appeal to the people is precluded even in the last resort, lest their eyes should be opened; the Convention have denied the minority the privilege of entering the reasons of their dissent on its journals.– Thus despotism is already triumphant, and the genius of liberty is on the eve of her exit, is about bidding an eternal adieu to this once happy people.”

Yet the Federalists, (those who supported ratification), promised that no such threat to liberty existed within their precious Constitution; that it had all the proper and necessary safeguards which would ensure that liberty lived long into the future for the inhabitants of these States united.

Yet James Madison, one of those so-called Federalists, wrote, “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Madison all but said that people are weak and flawed, and that any system of government resting upon the consent of such flawed creatures was destined to become tyrannical and oppressive. Yet if you recall what Melancton Smith said, “I can consent to no government, which, in my opinion, is not calculated equally to preserve the rights of all orders of men in the community.” then you must ask yourself why you still consent to a government that has clearly proven that it is incapable of, or unwilling to, preserve and defend the liberty it was supposedly established to secure.

Oh, but that’s okay, the economy is doing good, the military is strong and kicking ass over there in Iraq, and we’re spreading democracy and freedom across the globe…even though freedom and liberty is in intensive care here in America. I find it hypocritical as hell how people can disparage petty dictators all over the planet, yet ignore the dictatorial nature of their own system of government; how nearly every agency within it serves but one purpose; to control and regulate almost every aspect of our lives.

But hey, you should vote so that you can make sure your guy gets elected. You might as well be asking me to choose between a dog shit milkshake flavored with either chocolate or strawberry for all the good voting does to preserve and protect my liberty!

As far as I’m concerned I cannot, in clear conscience, give my willing consent to any system of government that does not provide iron clad protection for my rights and my liberty. Without such guarantees and protection for my rights and my liberty, I cannot support any government, or any individual within it. Unless they can be arrested, jailed, or killed, (just as we can for violating the laws they enact), then our government, as it exists now, is incapable of securing the liberty it was supposedly designed to secure…therefore IT IS MY ENEMY.

The problem is, not only have our inherent and unalienable natural rights come under attack by this system of government, due to the creation of a centralized bank and the ever increasing debt produced by this system of government to fund its operations, we have become debt slaves; with each of us tied to an astronomical $22 Trillion debt. Our labor, our property, and our very existence as free individuals is collateral upon that debt.

Yet you have the gall to say we live in the land of the free and that I should vote to try and fix this mess. You may as well drive a car for 250,000 miles without performing any maintenance, and then when it starts breaking down do an oil change and expect it to run perfectly again. Our country has been on the pathway to tyranny and oppression since its inception in 1789, and if you think voting for a few good candidates after 230 years of corruption and abuse of power is going to make any difference, you’re delusional.

Thomas Jefferson was elected President just 10 short years after the government outlined by the Constitution was put into effect, yet in a letter to P.S. Dupont de Nemours Washington, dated 18 January 1802, Jefferson wrote, “When this government was first established, it was possible to have kept it going on true principles, but the contracted, English, half-lettered ideas of Hamilton, destroyed that hope in the bud.”

Oh but the American people today, in their infinite wisdom and knowledge, think that by making a few changes in a broken and corrupt system, they can magically restore America to the land of the free and the home of the brave. Like I said, y’all are delusional…

I think John Adams was right, “Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.”

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but we, and our ancestors screwed the pooch; we let liberty slip through our fingers, and if you think you can get it back by voting…well like I keep saying, you’re delusional.

If I were to mention the Civil War, or display an image of the Confederate Battle Flag, I’m betting that in the minds of 9 of 10 people they would immediately think of slavery; and any further discussion would be biased by that blot upon our history. What that means is that any mention of the South, or Confederacy, is immediately stigmatized by the stain of slavery; therefore ensuring that most people side with the North, or Union.

Was slavery evil? Most assuredly. What I find highly ironic is that most of those who have a bias against the Southern States during the Civil War due to their having utilized slave labor, also are those who proclaim that we must be tolerant of Islam; yet the history of Islam proves that they were notorious for the acquisition and use of slaves. Our country’s earliest encounters with Islamic States came after the Barbary Pirates would capture U.S. cargo vessels and hold the crews as slaves until the U.S. would pay for their release.

I get the distinct impression that those who despise the Confederacy solely because of the issue of slavery believe that America is the ONLY country that ever practiced slavery. I guess they’ve never read their Bible, because had they done so they would have seen that it makes many a reference to the treatment of slaves and servants.

It is said that slavery began in ancient Sumer, which is now modern day Iraq, and spread outwards from there. The Egyptians used slave labor to build their Pyramids and other monuments. Throughout the Middle Ages empires existed in an almost perpetual state of war with each other; with the conquering nation capturing those of their victims and carrying them off to work as slaves. King Charlemagne would capture slaves of his conquered foes and then sell them off to the highest bidder. Over the course of its history China also practiced slavery, capturing people to work as slaves from Turkey, Korea, Europe, Persia, Indonesia, and the Aboriginal tribes of Africa.

Listen, I’m not trying to justify slavery in America, I’m only trying to point out that America is not the ONLY country that has ever used slave labor. In fact, slavery was abolished in America before it was abolished in Brazil; which abolished it in 1880 I believe…well after the 13th Amendment abolished it in 1865.

It is sad that we claim to be a country that declares that all men are created equal, yet we allowed for slavery to exist in this country; yet did you know that some of our Founders sought to end it well before the Civil War, but were met with overall opposition and resistance? Thomas Jefferson felt it was a blight upon the concept of equality; laying the blame for slavery at the feet of the King of England in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence. He also hoped to educate and emancipate the slaves; but then colonize them outside the U.S. so that they could have a country of their own and prevent any future discord between the two races.

Now that may sound racist, but yet the man heralded as the President who ended slavery held the same position. Throughout his political career Abraham Lincoln sought to colonize slaves outside the U.S. He even held that those held in bondage were inferior to the white race and the two would never be on equal footing. If you don’t believe me, here’s a quote from Lincoln’s 4th debate with Stephen Douglas for the Presidency, “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Those aren’t my views, those are the views held by the man historians praise as the President who ended slavery in America; the man we have a huge monument dedicated to in our nation’s capital. Yet I’m racist for displaying a Confederate Battle Flag or supporting the cause of the Confederate States of America? Please, if you could, justify that position for me.

Do people think that slavery just up and happened and that it caused a Civil War in America? Slavery was instituted almost from the moment the first settlers arrived at Jamestown, and it grew into the thriving institution it was as the Colonies grew. At one point in history there were more slaves in New York than there were in the entire South. Slave labor was used to build our nation’s capital building and the White House.

If slavery was so evil why didn’t they prohibit it when they wrote the Constitution? Did you know that there were those among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention who sought to do just that, but were opposed by the delegates from slave owning States and others who felt that any effort to ban slavery would doom the Constitution to failure? So instead of standing on moral ground, they allowed for the continued existence of slavery just to ensure that their precious central government had a fighting chance of being adopted.

Without going back and researching it, I can only say that during my readings of the Anti-Federalist authors one of them made a comment that slavery was evil, and that although the Constitution prohibited Congress from enacting any law to ban the importation of new slaves prior to 20 years after the adoption of the Constitution, yet the author doubted that they would ever entirely ban slavery as an institution. In 1807 Congress did enact a law banning the further importation of slaves into America, but by then there were enough slaves living among us that their numbers could be replenished by new births among those held in bondage – it did nothing to end slavery.

While the wording of the Constitution never actually condones slavery, it doesn’t condemn it either. What the Constitution does is simply outline certain policies in regards to the institution of slavery that already existed so that it would be amenable to both those in the slave holding States and those in the States were slavery was not as prevalent.

Although the Constitution never condones slavery, did you know that the U.S. government declared it to be constitutional? That’s right, the entity established BY THE CONSTITUTION, declared that slavery was CONSTITUTIONAL!!!

In 1857 the United States Supreme Court, which is the branch of government that supposedly decides what the Constitution means, ruled that the Constitution does not grant citizenship to any black person, regardless of whether they were free or held in bondage. Dred Scott was a slave whose owners moved to a State where slavery was legal. Scott sued for his freedom and citizenship and the case was eventually heard by the Supreme Court, who ruled that the Constitution offered no protection or rights and privileges for blacks; therefore Scott was still legally considered a slave under that document.

This is not the first time that the Constitution, or the government created under it, had upheld the institution of slavery. In 1850 Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act which required that all runaway slaves were to be captured and returned to their owners, and that the citizenry were obliged to cooperate with their capture.

Although these laws and court rulings may have benefitted the slave owning States, they WERE NOT acts of the Southern slave owning States, they were acts of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; thereby upholding and defending the institution of slavery in America. As evil as the idea of holding one man in bondage to another is, this proves that the government itself considered slavery to be 100% LEGAL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION!

The ONLY way that could be changed is by constitutional amendment; which did take place…in 1865 at the CONCLUSION of the Civil War with the ratification of the 13th Amendment. I know I’ve mentioned it numerous times, but it bears repeating; there almost was ANOTHER 13th Amendment; one that was completely opposite in intent than the one we are all familiar with.

In 1861, in response to the secessionist movement, Congress adopted a proposed amendment that would have made slavery permanent and irrevocable in the United States. Known as the Corwin Amendment, the text of which states, “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

This proposed amendment passed both houses of Congress by the required 3/4 vote and was to be sent to the States for their consideration in an effort to stave off the secessionist movement and possibly prevent military conflict between the two sections of the country by allowing the States to keep their slaves and remain in the Union. Even Abraham Lincoln supported ratification of this Corwin Amendment, stating in his Inaugural Address, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service … holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

So let’s recap what I’ve covered so far. We have an institution which has been in existence, in some shape or form, almost since the dawn of man. We have a system of government outlined by men who refused to stand on equal rights for all by establishing said system of government which allowed for slavery. We have that system, then upholding and defending the institution of slavery; declaring it to be constitutional. And finally we have a president declaring that he supported an amendment which would have made slavery permanent in America. Are we clear on all that?

So, if slavery was legal under the Constitution, and if the government made an effort to further protect and secure that right to the slave owning states by proposing a Constitutional Amendment, why didn’t the States just adopt the Corwin Amendment and remain in the Union? There must have been OTHER reasons that caused them to continue with their secessionist stance since it is apparent that the government was attempting to protect their slaves.

I will mention one other point before I continue. When the first Southern States began to secede from the Union all manner of proposals were made in Congress to avoid a possible military conflict between the North and the South. One group of members in the House actually proposed a peaceful separation between the Northern and Southern States – although the motion was tabled and no further action taken upon it.

It did seem like the government was aware of the mounting tension between the two regions of the country, and that they were making every effort possible to avoid a military confrontation between the two. Then we have Abraham Lincoln who chose, to quote Governor Letcher of Virginia, to inaugurate Civil War.

Now I don’t know how you stand on who created and gave life to our system of government; be it the people in general or the States acting as distinct and separate political entities, and it doesn’t really matter at this point. What matters is that supposedly our government came into existence by formal declarations of consent to it; based upon the promises made to the delegates of the various State Ratifying Assemblies.

I tend to favor the idea that those who ratified the Constitution were acting on behalf of their individual States, (a position which is supported by the fact that most of the State Ratification Statements declare something along the lines of, “We, the people of such and such State…”) Had they been acting as individual citizens of a federal Union they would probably have said, “We the people of the United States…” as it states in the Preamble to the Constitution.

So the question is, must the people who gave their consent to a system of government remain forever bound to that system of government, or do they have the right to, at any time and for any reason, revoke that consent and return to their status as a free and independent State? The Ratification Statements of three States, New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island, all declare that the power being granted to the central government could be revoked by those States if it should prove that the government they were establishing became harmful to them. So I support the belief that any State, at any time, may revoke their consent to the authority and jurisdiction of the federal government, and become a free and independent State.

But that’s just my opinion; but it is an opinion which has some substance in historical record.

So again returning to President Lincoln, after the bombardment of Fort Sumter, (which in my opinion was nothing more than an act of self defense against the hostile invasion of the sovereign territory of South Carolina by the U.S. government) the president called for 75,000 volunteers for a period of 3 months to quell the uprising and rebellion in the Southern States.

Aside from South Carolina defending itself against a hostile invasion by foreign troops, there was no uprising, or rebellion. The only rebellion, per se, was the fact that those States that had chosen to secede were essentially rebelling against the authority of a government they believed to be was tyrannical and oppressive. They had no real qualms with the people of the North; they sought not conquest or glory. All they sought was to be left alone to govern themselves as they saw fit.

Sound familiar? It ought to, because that’s all the Founders were fighting for in the American Revolution.

It is at this point in my dissertation that I point my finger at YOU and ask: Do you believe the Civil War was fought to end slavery? If you answer YES to that question then essentially you are saying that the Civil War was fought against the Constitution; for if the Constitution made slavery legal, (as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott), then to fight a war to end it was unconstitutional; making Lincoln a war criminal.

If that is true, then those who fought against the Union were ACTUALLY fighting to protect and defend the Constitution. Those who fought for the Confederacy did not, at first, invade another sovereign State and burn and pillage homes and property, (unlike their Union counterparts). They only were defending their homes against a foreign invader who sought to bind them to a Union they no longer wanted to be a part of.

War is hell, and the Civil War was no exception. Estimates have the death toll from that conflict ranging anywhere from 500,000 to almost 3/4 million people; with many more being maimed for life. On top of that there is the absolute devastation to the homes and infrastructure of the Southern States by Union forces. Heap upon that the atrocities committed against non-combatant Southerners; who were often treated no better than rabid dogs by some Union Generals. ]

All that could have been avoided had Lincoln just let the South leave the Union in peace. You claim he fought his war to end slavery. But the Supreme Court held that slavery was legal; so Lincoln was fighting against the Constitution. Lincoln, at first, claimed he was fighting his war to save the Union, as per his letter to Horace Greeley, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”

It was only after the fighting had gone on much longer than both he and the Northern States had thought it would, that the political motivation for the war shifted towards ending slavery. The reason for this is stated clearly in Woodrow Wilson’s book, A History of The American People, page 231, “It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.”

Regardless of whether the Union won or lost, had the political motivation not shifted from saving the Union to freeing the slaves, the North would have been condemned by historians for the suffering and loss inflicted upon their brethren to the South. As it was, the fact that the North was seeking to bind people to a system they wanted no part of was clear to many across the globe. In 1861 the London Times published a piece stating, ” [T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.”

So Lincoln had to change his stance from one of saving the Union to one in which he was fighting a moral war to end slavery; and that’s the version you have been taught in school…but it isn’t the truth! Lincoln fought to subjugate and oppress a people who only wanted to be free of the authority and jurisdiction of the system of government that had been corrupted by Northern business interests.

This fact was clearly explained by former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest in an interview AFTER the Civil War, “I loved the old government in 1861. I loved the old Constitution yet. I think it is the best government in the world, if administered as it was before the war. I do not hate it; I am opposing now only the radical revolutionists who are trying to destroy it. I believe that party to be composed, as I know it is in Tennessee, of the worst men on Gods earth – men who would hesitate at no crime, and who have only one object in view – to enrich themselves.”

The version of history regarding the Civil War is the Northern version, and it glorifies their cause, while vilifying the South – and you swallow that revisionist garbage hook, line, and sinker! But the fact is that Abraham Lincoln fought a war against the Constitution; and we have a huge monument dedicated to him in our nation’s capital.

At the same time, we have the Southern States who were fighting, (according to your beliefs), to protect an institution which was deemed legal and Constitutional by the Supreme Court. Yet monuments dedicated to the heroes of the Confederacy are being torn down at an alarming rate across the country.

So let me get this straight; we have a monument that still stands, dedicated to a war criminal, (someone who fought AGAINST the Constitution), and we have monuments being torn down which honor those who fought to defend the Constitution.

It makes perfect sense, if you think ass backwards. But in a world where reason and logic are the judges of what is right and wrong, it is absolutely insane that people support a war criminal, and vilify, defile, and insult those who fought with honor and valor to support and defend the document which created our system of government.

It just proves we live on one crazy, mixed up world.

“A nation of slaves is already prepared to applaud the clemency
of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not
proceed to the last extremes of injustice and oppression.”
~Edward Gibbons~

Of all the Founding Fathers there are 3 that stand out in my mind as leaders of the movement that saw America become a free and independent country. There was Thomas Jefferson, whose knowledge and prose gave us such documents as the Summary View of the Rights of British America and the Declaration of Independence. There was Samuel Adams, whose fiery passion led him to become an outspoken critic of the policies of King George and a leading member of the Son’s of Liberty; whose dumping of the tea into Boston Harbor remains one of the greatest acts of civil disobedience ever recorded in history.

Then there was Patrick Henry, the Voice of Thunder, who warned King George that he ought to take the lesson of history regarding Caesar and Brutus, and Charles the first and Cromwell, and was then accused of treason by someone in the crowd; to which Henry responded, “If this be treason…then make the most of it.” It was Henry, who before the crowd at St. John’s Church uttered the famous words, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Henry did not have the pen that Jefferson did, but he spoke from his heart, from his knowledge, and he spoke with a passion and devotion to the principle of liberty that, to this date, is unmatched by any statesman or politician.

So why would someone so devoted to liberty stand up and rail against the proposed constitution which the people were promised was designed to secure that liberty for them? What is it about that document that caused Patrick Henry to devote so much energy to oppose it; and if Henry truly was fearful of what might occur should that document be ratified, should we not, at least, give some consideration to whether or not his fears were justified?

You may not be aware of this, but Patrick Henry used no notes when he spoke; he spoke from his heart and from memory. Imagine today a politician standing before an audience delivering a speech without notes or teleprompters and you’ll gain a glimpse into the genius of Patrick Henry.

Now take that fact into consideration when you realize that not once, but twice Patrick Henry rose up in the Virginia Ratifying Convention and delivered very lengthy speeches in opposition to the constitution.

Now some have called Henry’s speeches rambling, but as a writer I can understand why they might appear that way to some. I often begin an article with a single idea; hoping to fit it all on one or two pages. But as I write other ideas flood into my head, and the next thing you know I’ve written 7 or 8 pages. So I can understand how Henry, as a speaker, might find one thought leading to another, then that thought leading to another and another; making his speeches appear rambling and incoherent. I think Henry even recognized this in himself, for on June 5, 1788 he told the Virginia Assembly, “I fear I tire the patience of the Committee, but I beg to be indulged with a few more observations.”

I think that the people living today simply cannot perceive the way people felt back in 1788 as it pertains to liberty and to their devotion to their State. Today when you ask a person where they are from, they most often reply, America. Back then if you were to ask one where they came from they would most likely answer, Virginia, Massachusetts, or New York. To these men their States were their countries, and the Confederation did nothing to diminish the authority and sovereignty of each of them.
So, when I discuss the radical transformation that took place once the Constitution was adopted, people view it from a modern day perspective; not having known anything different. But for those who lived back in 1788 the transformation was as radical to them as if we were to convert to communism today.

If you had taken the time to read any of the writings of those called the Anti-Federalists you would have seen that common sentiment running throughout many of their articles. Most of them felt that the proposed constitution was going to eradicate State sovereignty to a certain extent, if not entirely. Most of them felt that the proposed Constitution would pose a danger to the liberty they had so recently won. Most felt that once established this new system of government would expand its powers way beyond those that they were being promised it would exercise.

Today the Federalist Papers are viewed as the supreme dissertation upon how our system of government is supposed to work. But when they were written they were an effort by Madison, Hamilton and Jay to sway the people of New York towards supporting ratification. They were written to calm the fears of the people of New York who had heard the rantings of the Anti-Federalists. In essence, the Federalist Papers were a clear ad campaign, or what you might call propaganda today.

I find it truly sad that so few have even read the Federalist Papers, let alone any of the articles written by those who opposed the, so-called, divinely inspired Constitution. People today just accept the government we have as if it was always this way; and if they do think about a time when we didn’t have this system of government they view the change from a Confederation to a Union as one for the better.

But that is what knowledge is for, to provide you with the facts to make an informed decision rather than one based upon an emotional response to the issues. Unfortunately I have found very few people who care about taking the time to educate themselves as to the truth regarding the flaws purposefully put into the Constitution. Fewer still have the courage to take those facts and change their opinions regarding this system of government they have come to put so much trust and faith in.

Yet the facts are still there, waiting for people to seek them out; although it seems they are becoming increasingly harder to find. It seems that there is a concerted effort underway to hide the truth from the American people. That is why I have made it my goal to find as much of this knowledge as possible and store it before access to it vanishes completely.

Currently I have over 800 files saved on my computer and on removable storage devices. Yet that is a fraction of what some people I know have. I have a friend whose collection of information dwarfs mine, and to peruse through that data before I die is at the top of my bucket list.

Getting back to Patrick Henry, I find it absolutely mind boggling that people will trust these politicians who run for office today, yet ignore the words of one of the men who played a key role in establishing America as a free and independent country. Yet Patrick Henry lamented that fact himself, stating, “Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so, I am contented to be so: I say, the time has been when every pore of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American.”

One of Henry’s biggest fears was that the proposed constitution left no means for the people to punish those who might overstep their authority and make a tyrannical use of their power. From the same speech Henry said, “But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our Representatives, will not abuse the power we put in their hands: I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers? I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny…”

Then a few sentences later Henry says, “My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants.” Now I have had a great many discussions, if you can call them that, with people over this. I have been told we do have that power; we can vote them out of office, or have them impeached and then later prosecuted under criminal law.

How many times have you seen that happen in your lifetime? Even Nixon, who was forced to resign due to the Watergate Scandal, was never prosecuted for his crimes. Nor was Reagan for Iran/Contra, or Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush for their crimes. Now you may ask, what crimes Neal; they didn’t break the law. Oh, yes they did, they broke the Supreme law of the land, but where within that law is there any punishment for those who break it?

If we break the laws they enact there are clearly defined penalties that can be imposed upon us; fines, jail time, and even death if the crime is worthy of it. Yet in the Constitution there are no such penalties attached should our elected officials overstep the limits that document imposes upon them.

Even if there were it is highly unlikely any of them would ever be found guilty of violating the Constitution. Why do I say that? Well it’s quite simple actually, and the answer is because any question of law under the constitution falls under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court…which just so happens to be a part of the government itself.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be unbiased; basing their decisions solely upon the Constitution. If that is true, then why have they reversed their own opinions over 200 times? How can one set of Justices rule one way and another set rule another if the Constitution has not been amended to change what it says?

What that shows me is that the court is not ruling according to law, it is ruling according to how it interprets the law…and there is a big difference. In an 1820 letter to Thomas Ritchie, Thomas Jefferson wrote this scathing condemnation of the Supreme Court, “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.”

John Marshall began that process in the ruling of Marbury v. Madison, and it set the precedent for the court to impose its interpretation of the Constitution; thereby establishing the belief that they can decide what powers to allow the government to exercise. As their decisions are supposedly final, and they are outside the elective process, we have no recourse other than revolution should we disagree with their decisions. That is a great deal of power for an unelected body of men and women; especially when we are told that we have a system based upon the consent of the people.

Yet how many people anxiously await the decisions of the Supreme Court; hoping that they will rule in their favor on an issue? What about ruling according to law – to the Constitution? Or does that no longer matter?

Although this began as an article speaking primarily on the wisdom and virtue of Patrick Henry, I feel I must include something written by another staunch defender of liberty, Robert Yates, who left the Constitutional Convention when he saw that it was overstepping its authority to amend the Articles of Confederation. Yates saw what the convention was doing and he left to mount an opposition to whatever document it might produce.

Yates wrote a series of essays under the nom de plume Brutus in opposition to the proposed Constitution, and in his 11th essay he began a discussion of the powers given to the Supreme Court. From that essay I quote, “This part of the plan is so modelled, as to authorise the courts, not only to carry into execution the powers expressly given, but where these are wanting or ambiguously expressed, to supply what is wanting by their own decisions.”

What does that say to you? What it says to me is that if the Constitution does not expressly delegate certain powers to the government, the court may, and most likely will, grant those powers through their decisions on the cases they might choose to hear. So, without any consent of the people or constitutional amendment, the court can, AND HAS expanded the power of your government way beyond those few express powers found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Much of this has been accomplished due to the Court’s interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Necessary, as far as my understanding of the word goes, is something that is absolutely required for something else to occur. For instance, if you don’t eat food, drink water, and breathe in oxygen, you will die. Therefore food, water and oxygen are necessary to your survival. You won’t die if you don’t have a house to live in, a car to drive, or clothes to wear. Those things ARE NOT necessary for you to survive.

That is the position Thomas Jefferson took on the Necessary and Proper Clause; that the federal government would be unable to perform its delegated tasks unless certain unspecified ‘necessary’ powers were also given it. However, there were men, like Alexander Hamilton, who espoused the philosophy that necessary meant powers that might be conceived to be conducive to the operation of the federal government; a very loose interpretation of the word necessary.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, more often than not, sided with the Hamiltonian view of the word necessary; and the powers of our system of government have grown beyond the wildest beliefs of men like Jefferson and Henry. Yet most Americans, not knowing any better, accept this as business as usual. As long as the things their government does somehow benefit them and their causes, they support it. The only opposition I see is opposition to the opposing party. I see very little opposition to a government run amok; drunk on its own power.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it until it sinks in, I believe that it was always the intent of those who carefully drafted the Constitution to result in the government we have today. It was never their intention to produce a government that would remain limited and dedicated to preserving liberty in America; it was always their intent to produce exactly the government we have today.

You may vote for Republicans or Democrats, but regardless of which side you vote for, the government always wins; for it never goes out of business or restricts its violations of your liberty regardless of who gets elected; and I think those who drafted the Constitution knew that this would eventually happen.

That is why they sought to undermine the States and their sovereignty, making the federal government supreme, not co-equal. They knew that the States, if left co-equal sovereigns, could nullify federal laws which violated States rights or the liberty of the people; which is exactly what Jefferson was talking about when he wrote, “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.” (Source: Jefferson’s draft of the Kentucky Resolutions)

Today all I see, when I watch people argue politics, are people arguing over who will be their next slave master. If you were in prison and you were given the opportunity to vote for who would be the next warden of that prison, and one warden promised you round the clock cable TV in your jail cell, and the other promised you a five star menu to choose your meals from, that is how I view y’all when deciding which party gets to hold power in government. Each side makes certain promises to do things for you, but they all restrict your liberty; keep you imprisoned in a system which you willingly consent to.

The difference between most of you and those like me is that we recognize we are trapped in a system that enslaves us and you still believe that you have a system dedicated to protecting and defending your rights and your liberty. But, as von Goethe said, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”

Instead of arguing whether Republicans or Democrats should be in control of government we should be arguing whether or not we even want to continue to allow this government to exist, to deprive us of the liberty that is the gift of our Creator. (See Declaration of Independence)

If this system of government cannot, or will not serve that purpose, then Lysander Spooner was right, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

Yesterday as I was reading through the posts on Facebook I came across a couple of posts made by friends of mine in Arkansas: Misty Graham and J. David Ferguson. These posts were directed primarily to so-called conservatives, i.e. Republicans, but since I don’t have the open forum they did on Facebook I’m just going to discuss them without regard to your political affiliation.

I was itching to write about this yesterday but chores got in the way, so I had to put it off until this morning. That said, I’m going to approach these questions a bit differently than my friends did; not so much because I’m afraid of just repeating what they said, rather I just had a couple of my own thoughts I’d like to toss into the mix as well.

Let me begin by asking a pretty straightforward question: Do you believe the Declaration of Independence outlines the fundamental stance our early Founders had regarding rights and the relationship between the government and the governed? The reason I ask this is because there is a passage in the Declaration of Independence that ties in directly to the questions posed by my two friends yesterday, “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.”

Now I know I’ve discussed unalienable before, but for the purpose of refreshing your memories I wish to discuss it again. Unalienable, according to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, means incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. What that means is that if you have an unalienable right, no one can take it from you, and you cannot give it away. Now you may choose not to exercise that right, but you NEVER lose it. That is the meaning of the word unalienable, and I want to make sure that is firmly planted in your minds before I continue.

The next question I wish to ask of you is: Do you believe that America was founded to provide liberty for all the inhabitants of this country? Before you answer that, do you even understand what real liberty is; and let me assure you, what you have today IS NOT liberty.

In defining liberty I prefer not to use the dictionary; rather I prefer to use the words of one of the men who risked his life to achieve it in America back in 1776; Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson writes, “Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”

To sum that up, liberty means that I can do whatever I want just as long as I don’t deprive you of the same right to do whatever you want. Liberty is not based upon whether or not what I do offends you, frightens you, or whether or not you disagree with what I’m doing. So long as I do not deprive you of any of your rights, I am free to do as I please. That is true liberty.

So now that you know the meaning of the words unalienable and liberty, do you think there ever is a time when a person’s rights can be restricted or curtailed? Now in asking that question it opens up a whole new can of worms; so to speak, as it addresses the nature of crimes.

For there to be a crime there has to be a victim. Just think about all the laws that have been passed in which you can be punished; fined, or jailed for doing things that hurt no one, or deprive no one of their rights. Who is the victim in these crimes? The whim of society is not sufficient justification to infringe upon one’s liberty or their ability to fully exercise their rights. Yet we have untold numbers of laws that do just that; from laws telling us we cannot put certain substances into our own bodies, to laws saying we must obtain a permit or a license to do certain things which harm no one if we do not comply.

My understanding of a crime is that I have to hurt you, take from you what is not mine to take, or deprive you of any of your rights. The opposite is true as well; for you to be found guilty of a crime you will have to have harmed me, stolen from me, or deprived me of my rights.

They say we have a system of justice in America, but my understanding of justice is merely giving to each of us our due; allowing us to exercise all our rights without interference so long as we bring no harm to others. So how can we say that we have a system of justice in America when the law often deprives us of the liberty it is supposed to protect and defend?

Now if you recall I mentioned Jefferson’s definition of liberty a bit earlier. I purposefully withheld a segment of that quote until now, that segment saying, “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 right of an individual.”

So if the law deprives a person, or a segment of society from exercising certain rights, then that law is, according to Jefferson, tyrannical. Are we in complete agreement so far?

So again let me ask you, do you think that there may be times when a person’s rights may be restricted, while still providing justice?

I would have to answer that by saying yes, there may be times when a person’s rights ought to be restricted. Let’s say someone breaks into your home to steal your TV. Is that TV not your property? Therefore the thief is attempting to take something which does not belong to him, he has violated your right to own your property and should be punished to provide justice.

Let’s say someone uses a gun in the commission of a crime, I believe that the person found guilty of doing so should be punished according to law; as they have abused their right by using that firearm to bring harm to, or deprive others of their property.

That said, every law on the book, (at least those that apply to us), has a penalty attached to it; a certain prescribed punishment; be it a fine, jail time, or death if the crime is deemed deserving of the death penalty.

Now comes the clincher. If society has attached certain penalties for the commission of certain crimes, and if an offender has completed, or fulfilled the sentence attached to those crimes, do you think their rights should be fully restored upon completion of their sentence?

Let’s take that a step further. Let’s say someone is sentenced to 15 years for armed robbery. Now if this person serves their sentence, in good behavior, and is released from jail, do you think ALL of their rights should be restored to them; including the right to keep and bear arms?
If your answer is no, why not?

I do not know all the laws of each State, but I do know that in certain instances felons are not allowed to own guns after being found guilty of a crime. In other instances felons are not allowed to vote, or to travel outside the U.S. Each State and each case is different, but in some instances released felons do not enjoy the same rights as do those who have never been found guilty of a crime.

Do you think this is fair; that it provides justice for all?

Since I do not want to make this about guns, per se, let’s take a moment to discuss whether or not a convicted felon be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Why should their right to participate in the election process be denied if they have faithfully served whatever penalty society has attached to the crime they were found guilty of committing?

These people, upon release, still have to pay the taxes that government imposes upon all of the citizens of this country; they still have to obey all the laws that the government imposes upon each and every one of us; so why should they be denied the right to participate in deciding who gets to make these laws and impose these taxes?

After all, one of the reasons our Founders rebelled against Britain was taxation without representation. If a released felon cannot vote, are they not a slave to a system not of their own choosing? If each of us is entitled to the right to defend ourselves, then if these released felons are ineligible to keep and bear arms, is not THAT right also being denied them?

But Neal, they committed a crime! Yes, they did. But they also served the prescribed time in jail attached to that crime. Upon release they should be found to have served their due to society and have all their rights restored to them.

If you do not believe that is the case, then maybe the problem is that our system of justice is too weak when it comes to punishing certain crimes. If you truly believe that certain crimes are so egregious that those who commit them should not have their rights restored to them upon release, then maybe that person does not belong on the streets to begin with; maybe they should spend the rest of their life in jail…or even be put to death so that society is rid of them.

If the law is designed to protect the individual rights of all of us, (which I no longer believe to be the case), then should not each of us be allowed to defend our rights and our property as we see fit?

In 1772 Samuel Adams said, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”

Now I can’t be certain, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Adams got his beliefs on that from John Locke, who in his Second Treatise wrote, “Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

Sec. 18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.”

Yet today often those who use deadly force to defend themselves, or their property, are the ones found guilty of a crime, and end up in prison. Now if that isn’t the most ass backwards thing, I don’t know what is. Why should it be a crime for a person to defend themselves, their family, their property, OR their rights?

I think it’s pretty straightforward, if society imposes certain penalties for the commission of a crime, and a person pays their dues to society by serving whatever sentence, or paying whatever fine is attached to a crime, then they should have their rights restored upon completion of the sentence attached to that crime. If you believe otherwise, then maybe we should toughen the penalties so that they remain off the streets; and while we’re at it, stop putting people in jail who have not committed a true crime; a crime which deprives another of their life, liberty or property.

It is NOT a crime for me to sit in the comfort of my home and take substances that society has deemed BAD; such as marijuana or even LSD…not that I would, but nonetheless the premise is true. It is NOT a crime for me to drive down the road without a seatbelt, yet I can be fined for not doing so, or jailed if I refuse to pay the fine. How many laws punish us for doing things that harm nobody? How many people are serving jail time for such crimes?

If we would stop penalizing people for victimless crimes then we could put the really bad people in prison for longer sentences; making our streets and homes safer. Better yet, if we would just let people protect and defend themselves and their property as they deem fit, then we could be rid of these really bad people. As Ted Nugent once said, “I don’t like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders.”

But as far as I’m concerned, if society has attached certain penalties to certain crimes, once a person has paid their dues to society they should be entitled to the full restoration of ALL of their rights. Otherwise change the law to provide harsher penalties for those crimes. But if you disagree, then you truly cannot say that you believe that all men are created equal and that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights; for if those rights are unalienable, released felons would enjoy them as equally as you do.

I don’t normally do this, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. So I’m going to include my e mail address here so that you can send them to me if you have anything to say about what I have just written: bonsai@syix.com

If you could travel back in time to 1999, (no reference to the song by Prince), and see the Neal Ross that lived back then, you would probably not recognize him. My son was just about to enter kindergarten and the furthest things from my mind were history and politics. I had been concerned, for quite some time, about the infringements upon my right to keep and bear arms, but that was about the extent of my political awareness.

Back then I did vote, and I voted strictly according to party; going straight down the ballot and voting for whomever had an R next to their name. I used to think the Democrats were pure evil and that the Republicans offered the only hope for America’s future.

So what happened to me?

I still cannot, with any clarity that is, explain what exactly happened to me, but I can provide a couple of quotes that may give you some insight as to why I went from a contentedly ignorant person to one who craved knowledge and freedom from an oppressive government.

The first quote comes from the film The Matrix, when Morpheus first meets Neo and is explaining to him the basics of the Matrix. Morpheus tells Neo, “What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is, but it’s there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.”

I suppose my earliest years on this planet were about like those of all others; I played, I obeyed my parents, and I did what every other kid in America did. But as I grew older I began to rebel against authority. I pushed the boundaries that my parents imposed on me, I acted out in school, and I even refused to conform to standards in the military as far as the restrictions on hair and mustache length. So yeah, I’ve always been somewhat of a rebel; so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that I would seek out the biggest authority in the country and rebel against it as well.

But there is more to it than just the urge to rebel; at least I have come to believe there is. I think there was an underlying force, that I was unaware of until recently, that pushed me to question authority over me and my life. A few weeks ago a friend suggested I find a copy of a book by Etienne de la Boetie about voluntary servitude, so I looked it up on the internet.

While reading through that book I found the following passage; which somewhat explains the reason why I am like I am. That passage states, “There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection and who always — like Ulysses on land and sea, constantly seeking the smoke of his chimney — cannot prevent themselves from peering about for their natural privileges and from remembering their ancestors and their former ways. These are in fact the men who, possessed of clear minds and far-sighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them, behind and before, and even recall the things of the past in order to judge those of the future, and compare both with their present condition.

These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them, slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.”

Now I’m not saying I’m a better human being than you are, I’m only saying that there was something inside me, from the moment I was born, that was waiting to be awakened; something that caused me to rebel, to seek out the truth about the history of my country and its system of government.

Are you aware that during the American Revolution there were basically 3 categories of people living in the British Colonies? There were those who took neither side, who just wanted to live in peace without becoming involved in the brewing conflict between the Crown and her Colonies. There were those who chose to remain loyal to the Crown regardless of what laws were being imposed upon them. Then there were those who took offense at any and all laws that they felt violated their natural rights. They were the leaders of the revolutionary movement, and they had names like Jefferson, Adams, and Henry.
I think those categories are still in existence today, with the only difference being that those who understand their natural rights and resist encroachments upon them make up a much smaller segment of the populace.

If you were to look at things today with a 1776 perspective you would see that our government today is just like the Crown was in 1776; the lawful government. There are those in this country today who pay little to no attention to what their government does; choosing to fill their time with an endless quest for entertainment and self-gratification. Then there are those who, aside from partisan differences, remain loyal to the system of government that rules over them. Then there are those, like me, who have decided that the system is oppressive and we want no part of it. We just make up a much smaller and less influential segment of society than did the men like Henry, Jefferson and Adams did in 1776.

The thing is, what we stand for is the same principles that they did; liberty and independence from a government that seeks to bind us in all cases whatsoever. We are those who, as Boetie explained, “Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them, slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.”

We are those who yearn for liberty, those who, in our minds, tyranny is that splinter that Morpheus spoke of to Neo; it is something that drives us mad.

Do you know how pearls are formed? A pearl is formed when some silt or sand is introduced into an oyster. That silt annoys the oyster, so it covers it with a substance in an effort to stop it from annoying it. However, that does not work so it repeats the process over and over again until a pearl is formed.

In some ways I think that is what has happened to a great many people in this country. They may realize, deep down, that they are not free, but they have covered that knowledge up with false trust in a system, or the quest for pleasure so that the knowledge that they are slaves is buried so deep in their psyche that it is barely noticeable. Yet Thomas Paine writes, “…though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine, the coal can never expire.”

Samuel Adams once said, “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” I used to think that quote was ridiculous; because for a brush fire to start there has to be some combustible material; and most people’s minds are devoid of any such material. But then I realized that what is missing is knowledge. Knowledge is the key that will unlock the chains that bind a people to tyrants.

It is not my job to try and change people’s minds. My job is to only seek out as much knowledge as I can, and then share what I’ve learned with others. I am not to question whether or not I have any success in this endeavor, only to keep on doing what I do regardless of whether I awaken only one person, or hundreds of thousands of them.

For a long time I’ve felt cursed; cursed because I could see and understand things that others could not seem to understand. I don’t see it as a curse now, I see it as a blessing; for I am among the chosen few who can see the truth, and I feel it is my sacred duty to share that knowledge with others; even when they refuse to accept it. Thomas Jefferson chose the following quote to use upon his personal seal, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” Now I am not openly rebelling, as in taking up arms, I am trying to shine a light upon the lies that have bound a people to a system of government that, from the very beginning, was designed to enslave the people to it.

It is kind of funny that people consider me to be very knowledgeable regarding politics and history, yet they reject much of what I write about because to accept what I say would cause them to reject everything they had previously accepted as the truth. Some of these people come to me, from time to time, and ask what I would suggest to fix all our problems with government. They don’t like my answer, “Burn the whole fucking system to the ground and piss on the ashes.”

To them that idea is too radical, too extreme. They believe we need government and have to work within the system to fix it. That’s just it, there is no fixing it because it is not broken; it was designed to produce exactly the type government we have today.

We had a system of government in place prior to the implementation of the one outlined by the Constitution. Sure, it may, or may not have been weak and ineffective; but that’s why they sent people to Philadelphia in 1787 to do; come up with suggestions to strengthen the existing government so that it may better serve the needs of the Confederation.

But oh no, these megalomaniacs sought not to fix the system that would have preserved the States as sovereign and independent entities and ensured that the rights of the people remained secure, they sought to create a centralized form of government with all encompassing power over both the States and the people.

I can only make educated guesses as to how knowledgeable people are about how their current system of government came into existence by the comments they make regarding it. From what I hear people say, they aren’t very knowledgeable.

For instance, are you aware that during the Philadelphia Convention James Madison proposed that the federal government have an absolute negative, or a veto power, over every law enacted by the States? Are you aware that Alexander Hamilton wanted to have an elected King, or what he called a Governor, who served for life, and that the federal government got to select the governors of each State? Are you aware that when the proposals for amendments to make up a Bill of Rights were sent to Congress that James Madison purposefully omitted the word EXPRESSLY from what would become the 10th amendment, so as not to place any limitations upon the powers given this new government?

Of course you aren’t, because you weren’t taught those things in school. From what I recall of my studies of that period of our history it would seem that some guys went to Philadelphia, drafted a constitution, submitted it to the States, and they voted peacefully to adopt that system; no fuss, no muss. Well it wasn’t as peaceful a process as we were taught; there was conflict and a great deal of opposition to this proposed system of government.

These so-called Anti-Federalists, which is ironic because they stood for a truly federal system of government, laid out numerous arguments against the proposed Constitution. Having spent the last few months studying the Anti-Federalist Papers I have noticed a pattern; that most of what they feared would happen if the Constitution was adopted, has happened; while most of the promises made to the States by the so-called Federalists have been broken.

How could this have happened if the system outlined by the Constitution was not flawed? How could our government have amassed so much power and restricted so much of our liberty if the document establishing this system of government was perfect?

Our country became an independent nation not because the people sought an all powerful government that could take care of their every need and provide them with comfort and security. America became great because those who fought for it sought liberty; and it began to go downhill the moment liberty took a back seat to the idea that government should serve any other purpose than the preservation of that liberty. Or, as Professor Ross Lentz once said, “The Constitution failed the people in 1787.”

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

Voting is not going to fix this problem, not when the system itself if broken and corrupt, and your only voting for more of the same if you believe otherwise. I’m not saying there is an answer, at least not this far along in the game. I am only saying that you’re wasting your time if you think that by electing a few good people to a corrupt and broken system that anything drastic is going to change…it isn’t, and the sooner you accept that the less painful the lesson will be.

People like to think they are free, but is that really the case; are they really free? What makes you free – the ability to decide what to eat for supper tonight, what brand of clothes to wear, what music to listen to, where to go on vacation, or what to watch on TV? Is that what defines freedom for you? Freedom, at least my definition of it, is being able to do whatever I want so long as my actions bring no harm to anyone else.

I’ve already written about all the things you CAN’T do without first obtaining a permit or license; operate a motor vehicle, carry a firearm on your person, build a home, start a business, and even get married, so there’s no use in repeating myself there. But one of the most egregious restrictions upon freedom is one which very few people seem to notice; the restriction of free thought.

Have you ever noticed how defensive people get when you question, or challenge, their opinions? I encounter this all the time when I try to present facts to people that contradict their existing beliefs. You can almost see the light go off in their eyes as all the circuits in their brain responsible for critical thinking begin shutting down.

I don’t know if this is a self-defense mechanism designed to prevent them from suffering from the Cognitive Dissonance associated with dealing with facts that cause them to question their beliefs, or if it is simply the fact that they have become mentally lazy. All I do know is that I’d probably have more success surviving a 10 story fall off a building than I would of convincing most people that their opinions are based upon lies and deception.

Here I go again quoting from movies, but there is a scene in the film the Matrix when Morpheus tells Tank to load the jump program, then tells Neo, “I’m trying to free your mind.” Can a person truly be free when all their thoughts are not their own; they have been controlled and manipulated by society and a system that demands conformity?

In 1792 James Madison wrote that, “a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them.” How often do we see people reacting violently when someone expresses an opinion they disagree with? How often have we seen images and words taken down because some group found them offensive?

I have never, nor will I ever, demand that anyone take what I say at face value. In fact, I openly urge people to research for themselves whether what I write about is based upon fact, or is the work of a highly overactive imagination. Whether or not anyone ever takes me up on that challenge I suppose I’ll never know, unless they come forward with facts proving that I was wrong. If that happens I will repeat the process for myself, and if I find that I was, in fact, wrong, I will change my opinion to conform to the facts. That’s what a person with any intellectual integrity would do, not ignore the facts simply because they are inconvenient.

If you truly want to be free you have to stop forming your opinions based upon what others tell you is the truth. You live in a system where deception is the norm, not the rarity. You are fed lies from the time you begin your schooling, and those lies continue on through adulthood by the media that entertains you. You are taught what to think, and how to view those who have opposing beliefs.

I hate reverting back to the Civil War all the time, but it is a perfect example of how we have been indoctrinated into believing one thing, when that position is contradicted by the facts. Are you going to trust some 21st century textbook on the Civil War over the words of those who lived and participated in it? There is an old saying that I rarely hear used anymore that goes something like, “If you want the truth you are going to have to go straight to the horse’s mouth.” What that means is that if you want the truth about something you are going to have to go to the words and deeds of those who actually participated in an event; that is if the truth matters to you.

I find it astounding that people will cheer me on when I point out the violations of the Constitution by the party they oppose, yet they become incensed, or revert to silence when I point out the violations of the Constitution by the party they support. What we have in America is a system in which controlled opposition is tolerated; meaning that you are given a choice to either support a liberal or a conservative ideology, but the moment you take a few steps back and question the system itself you become the target of all kinds of opposition.

Republicans accuse the Democrats of doing this and doing that, while the Democrats do the same to the Republicans. So people keep fighting this left/right paradigm rather than seeing the obvious which is right there in front of their noses; that the entire system is violating the Constitution and restricting the very liberty it was supposedly designed to secure for us.

In 2013 Edward Snowden fled the United States to avoid prosecution under the Espionage Act after he had exposed the extent to which your government is spying upon you, the American people. That is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, and yet the people condemned HIM for exposing the crimes being committed by their government. Obama was president when this happened and the NSA’s spying upon us has not diminished even the slightest under Trump; and I’m willing to bet that it will only increase in scope and capability under whoever becomes president after Trump leaves office.

All of our rights, our real freedom, has been under attack for years, if not decades, by administrations controlled by both Republicans and Democrats yet all we can do is sit here and blame the other party for all our problems. Government, an overstepping power hungry government IS THE PROBLEM!

But Neal, we need government. Do we? I sure as hell don’t! What benefits does government provide me that I cannot provide for myself in a more timely and efficient manner? When a person relies upon someone else to provide things for them, they become enslaved to that entity. Have you not heard the old saying, “You don’t bite the hand that feeds you”?

If you rely upon government for anything you are less likely to question that government when it imposes restrictions upon your ability to do other things that have absolutely nothing to do with the benefits they provide you.

Take for instance if you get government run medical care, you cannot smoke marijuana or you will be denied coverage for medical treatment if you show up positive in a drug test. Why, simply because the government has criminalized the use of marijuana? Where in the Constitution does it authorize them to decide what we can and cannot put into our bodies? Hmm…

In 1772 Samuel Adams wrote, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”

The right to defend one’s self, and their property is an inherent and unalienable right, yet how many restrictions has government placed upon when, where, and under what circumstances we can exercise that right? If someone breaks into my home with the intent of taking something that does not belong to them, is that not a violation of my right to defend my property? Therefore, according to Sam Adams, and I not justified in defending that property in the best manner I can; meaning deadly force?

John Locke stated that premise as follows, “This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.”

Yet in my home State of California I must prove that I feared for my life before any use of deadly force is considered ‘justified.’ My property is mine, and I have the inherent right to defend it at all times, using whatever means I find the situation demands. I do not buy into the belief that I must dial 911 and wait for hired law enforcers to come to my rescue; law enforcers who just because they wear a badge are authorized to use the same force the law denies me the right to use.

If one cannot defend their property, which includes their thoughts and opinions, then how can one claim to be truly free? This whole nonsense of shutting down thought and opinions that run counter to what is commonly accepted is censorship, pure and simple…and censorship IS NOT freedom!

I have been reading, with increasing frequency I might add, how the internet is slowly being taken over by those who seek to restrict the free expression of beliefs and ideas that society deems offensive.

Facebook is blocking more and more content because it violates their community standards. Now I hear that YouTube is taking down, or blocking access to certain videos that are deemed controversial. It seems that the last bastion of free speech is quickly falling prey to political correctness; the same disease that has ruined free speech throughout the rest of the country.

I swear Orwell must be rolling over in his grave right now, as he tried to warn us of the Thought Police in his book 1984. Yet that’s exactly what we are experiencing; those who have deemed it their responsibility to regulate and control the information we have access to and what is tolerable thought and speech.

What we are witnessing is the expansion of Groupthink; the concept that it is acceptable for people to think within certain defined boundaries, but whenever someone steps outside those boundaries they are to be attacked and condemned. My God people, if you can’t see that free means, FREE TO SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT, then there is no hope for you!

You may as well just admit that you are a slave if your thoughts are not your own, that you cannot say whatever you want without coming under attack from a system designed to stifle free speech. In his Address to the Officers of the Army, dated 15 March 1783, George Washington wrote, “for if Men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind; reason is of no use to us—the freedom of Speech may be taken away—and, dumb & silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.”

What we are witnessing is the abolishment of true free speech and the establishment of what is considered acceptable speech. Our entire vocabulary may as well be abolished, to be replaced with acceptable terminology that does not offend anyone. Again, Orwell must be rolling over in his grave, as in 1984 he wrote, “You haven’t a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston,’ he said almost sadly … ‘In your heart you’d prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning. You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?’

‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it …”

If you can’t see these things, then it is too late for you; there is no hope. If you can’t see these things then you are a slave to the system already. But if you can, then it is your duty to fight back by speaking out whenever, and as often as you can about what you see going on around you. This is true even when it causes you to come into conflict with friends and family, for the truth should be your only guide in deciding what you say. The truth is slowly being hidden from you, and if that worries you then you need to speak out, long and hard, against this atrocity.

I recognize that I am part of this system; we all are. The only thing that differentiates you and I is that I have chosen to be a virus in the system; fighting to retain my freedom of speech, while you submit to the restrictions being imposed upon what you can and cannot say.

I refuse to be led, as Washington said, like a sheep to the slaughter. The slaughter is the abolishment of all freedom in this country; and it is coming unless the American people stop playing the two party paradigm game and start opposing the system that seeks to take away their freedom.
And one final thought. If you are among those who believe that politics is of no concern to you, then you are worse than those who fall for the two party bullshit that permeates American politics; for it DOES, AND WILL affect you when your freedoms are finally taken from you.

They allow you to remain blissfully unaware; as you pose them no threat at the present time. But when the time comes for them to implement total control you WILL notice it; your freedom will be gone and you’ll be left standing there wondering what the hell just happened.

You people, and that means 99% of you, need to wake the hell up before it’s too late. You need to stop bickering amongst each other, and stop attacking people like me. I am no threat to you, I only seek to defend your rights as much as I seek to defend my own. If you truly believe I am your enemy, why is it that I have not tried to take any of your freedom from you, why is it that the only people who have done that are the ones you have lent your support for by giving them your vote?
Ponder that, would you.

To: Yuba County Board of Education
935 14 St.
Marysville, CA 95901

From: Neal Ross

Re: Lindhurst High Students

I have no idea why this happens, but every so often, on a Wednesday, the students of Lindhurst High are let out of school early. This only concerns me because they get out of school at the same time I leave for work, so I have to be extra careful driving down the road as they are apt to cross the street without regards to oncoming traffic.

However, yesterday as I was waiting at the stop sign at the corner of McGowan Parkway and Evelyn Drive, four African American students began pointing wildly at my truck and at me. One of them, not so discreetly I might add, raised his middle finger in salute to me, (if you get my drift).

Now I’m not going to lose any sleep over some teenaged kid flipping me the bird, but it is what upset him enough to give me the finger is what bothers me. I have, on the rear window of my truck, a sticker depicting the St. Andrews Cross; otherwise known as the Confederate Battle Flag, and I’m pretty sure that is what upset these young kids.

It saddens me that society has indoctrinated the youth, and many adults, to believe that this flag represents racism, slavery and prejudice. It angers me that you, as educators, have not taught them the truth about that flag, or about the history of slavery in America.

I raised my son in this area with him attending Johnson Park Elementary School, then Yuba Gardens Middle School, and then finally graduating from Lindhurst High in 2009. I made it a point to attend every function, especially the open houses so that I could get to know his teachers, and what they were teaching my son.

When it came time for my son to study civics, I asked his teacher certain questions regarding the curriculum; would he be discussing this, would he be talking about that, etc. etc. He shocked me by saying that I should be teaching his course because I obviously knew more about the subject matter than he did.

That was 12 years ago, and I’ve learned a whole lot more in those 12 years. I can also imagine how, due to political correctness, how the course curriculum has been altered to fit modern stereotypes and hide the truth from those whose minds are most yearning for it.

I can understand why those young kids got so upset with that image on my truck, even though I know the truth about what that flag stands for. To them that image is offensive because that is what they have been taught; by both society and you people who call yourselves educators. Unfortunately what they have been taught is a lie.

Slavery was a blot upon our nation’s history; I won’t deny that. But those who fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War weren’t fighting to keep their slaves; hell, most of them didn’t own any slaves to begin with. Sure, slavery, and the continued attempts by Northerners to interfere with it in the South, may have been among the reasons that led some of the Southern States to secede but they were not the reason the Civil War was fought – not by a long shot.

The first 7 States seceded from the Union in rapid fire, beginning with the secession of South Carolina on December 20, 1860. But the last four, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee did not secede until Abraham Lincoln called for an army of 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion in the Cotton States. They joined the Confederacy not to keep their slaves, but because they would not take up arms to subjugate and oppress their neighboring States.

That is why the Civil War was fought, because the Confederate States were defending their right to leave a Union they had voluntary given their consent to become a part of. They felt they were within their rights to leave this Union as easily as they had joined it and that when Lincoln called for troops to invade their sovereign territory it was an act of war on the part of the Lincoln Administration, and they were within their rights to defend themselves.

That was the Civil War, a war between a people who sought independence from a government they believed had become oppressive, and that government who sought to keep them in the Union by force. Had Lincoln simply let the South leave the Union in peace there would have been no Civil War, and had there been no Civil War there would have been no Confederate Battle Flag. So the flag DOES NOT represent slavery or prejudice as so many have been led to believe.

Lincoln himself, at least in the early years of that conflict, didn’t care about ending slavery in America; he felt since it was legal under the Constitution he had no legal authority to end it; and he made that point clear numerous times. In fact, in his Inaugural Address he references a proposed constitutional amendment that would have made slavery permanent in the United States, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

This amendment Lincoln referred to, had it been passed, would have become the 13th Amendment; which is somewhat ironic because the 13th Amendment we know now ended slavery, not made it permanent. However, had your history teachers been doing their jobs they would have taught their students about this proposed Corwin Amendment which was an effort by the Congress to make slavery permanent if the Southern States would just stay in the Union.

That’s how desperate to keep the Union together the North was; that they would make slavery permanent and irrevocable if the South would just stop with the secessionist movement. Apparently, since the Southern States kept seceding, slavery was NOT the reason they were attempting to leave the Union; otherwise had it been the reason they would have just ratified the amendment and saved a lot of bloodshed.

Lincoln’s war policy is best explained in a letter he wrote to Horace Greeley in 1862, in which he says, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

But that isn’t taught to our youth either; only that Lincoln was the great emancipator who ended slavery. I wonder, do your textbooks contain the text of the Emancipation Proclamation? Do they mention that it did not free a single slave in any Union controlled territory? Do your history instructors teach their students that after Lincoln introduced his Emancipation Proclamation that many Union soldiers deserted the Union Army; with some fleeing to Canada…because freeing the slaves is not why they signed up to fight against the Confederacy; saving the Union was. Do your history teachers teach that there were riots in the streets of some northern cities, such as New York City, after Lincoln introduced his Emancipation Proclamation; and that Northern blacks came under attack by Northern Whites?

Of course not, none of this is taught because it doesn’t fit the politically correct narrative you people want our kids to grow up believing. But it is all truthful and easily verifiable if one would but do a bit of research instead taking for granted that what you guys are teaching them is the truth, and the whole truth.

I understand that the issue of slavery is controversial, and divisive, but as educators you should rise above that and attempt to introduce the truth so that our children, and their children, can rise above the divisiveness that is an enduring legacy of the practice of holding people of one race in bondage to another.

You do know that Thomas Jefferson wanted to free the slaves long before the Civil War…don’t you? While he owned slaves, he felt the practice was a violation of the very rights he and his fellow countrymen sought to secure for themselves against a tyrannical British government.

Jefferson railed against slavery in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, which was later edited out by the Committee of Five because they felt many of the Southern States would not vote for independence with such controversial wording in the document. Jefferson’s wording stated, “…he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere.”

Yet Jefferson was a realist as well, meaning that he knew that once a people had endured slavery there would forever be lingering resentments and animosities between those whose ancestors had been held in bondage and their captors. In his Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson writes, “It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.”

Jefferson favored colonization of the slaves after they had been taught to become self-sufficient. He proposed educating them and finding a suitable location where they could begin to establish a colony of their own, free of their former oppressors. While this may sound radical, racist even, it is also the position which was held by Lincoln for a long time. Lincoln also supported the deportation and colonization of the slaves, and in 1862 he met with a congregation of freed black clergymen and asked them to help him in generating support amongst the other blacks for his plan.

From the minutes of this historic meeting we read, “Having all been seated, the President, after a few preliminary observations, informed them that a sum of money had been appropriated by Congress, and placed at his dispositions for the purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or a portion of them, of African descent, thereby making it his duty, as it had been for long time his inclination, to favor that cause; and why, he asked, should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any two other races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.”

Not quite the image of the Great Emancipator that is taught in school, is it? But that’s just the beginning of the lie that is taught about Lincoln and his stance on slavery and the black people in this country.

I’ll bet that your history teachers do not dare mention the debates between Lincoln and Stephen Douglas for the presidency. As is the custom today, contenders for the presidency would hold public debates, although theirs weren’t televised for the whole country to see, in which they discussed the issues and their positions on them.

It was in the fourth such debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas that Lincoln said the following, “While I was at the hotel to—day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, —that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Oh my, we can’t have such racist comments being taught our children – it might tarnish the image of the former president; whom we currently rank as among one of the best this nation has ever produced! But as John Adams said in his defense of the British soldiers accused of murder for the Boston Massacre, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

I could go on, and on, and on even more about how the lies being taught about Abraham Lincoln and his war of aggression against the South had nothing to do with providing freedom and equality for the slaves, but I fear I have already stretched your patience. I do, however, wish to make one final point.

I do not know this information because I was taught it in school…I was not. I know this information because I sought out the truth for myself; and have been seeking out the truth about the founding of this country and the establishment of our system of government for nearly two decades. I do not blame you as educators, per se, as this indoctrination has been going on for years and years. I only wish to bring to your attention the fact that there are some of us out here, who pay for you to teach our children the truth, who realize that you are doing them a grave disservice by lying to them, or at least providing a one sided and biased view of that period of American history known as the Civil War.

So, in closing I’d like to leave you with a few comments from Major General Patrick Cleburne of the Confederate Army, who warned of how the history of that great conflict would be recorded, “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”

You see, had you been doing your job, educating our youth to the real history…the truth…then they would not hold the Confederate Battle Flag in such low esteem. Rather, they would cheer it on as it represents the same thing that those who affixed their signatures to the Declaration of Independence did – freedom from an oppressive government.

But that’s not your job is it, to teach our children the truth. Your job is best summed up by something George Carlin once said, “They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that . . . that doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. That’s right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fuckin’ years ago. They don’t want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers . . . Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it…”

And I’m sorry if the language offends you, but that’s just how Carlin spoke. Besides, the truth often is offensive to those who make a living out of hiding it from others…such as yourselves. If you ask me, you don’t run public schools, you run public indoctrination centers. And you wonder why so many people today are opting for home schooling? Go figure, huh…

And now that I have rattled your cage a bit, I bid you a very pleasant day…

In today’s modern political arena it is perfectly acceptable for one side of the political spectrum to hurl insults, or sling mud, at those aligning themselves with the other side of the spectrum. Democrats criticize and insult Republicans, and Republicans criticize and insult Democrats; and it is accepted as part of the political process of choosing who will represent the people in government.

Yet there seems to be this unspoken barrier protecting the system itself; that when one crosses causes them to be subjected to criticism and insults from both sides of the political spectrum. So while it is perfectly acceptable to question, and insult, those holding differing political views, it is not acceptable to question the system itself.

So, while it is okay for Republicans and Democrats to insult each other; with each side saying that the opposing ideology is bad for America, it IS NOT acceptable to say that government itself is bad for America. It seems that once one makes such a claim, once they have passed that Rubicon, there is no going back; they are a nutcase, an extremist, or a threat to the American way of life itself.

But what is the American way of life? Is it to pillage and plunder one segment of society to benefit another? Is it to submit to absolute and arbitrary power at the cost of your rights and your liberty? Is it to vote, pay your taxes on time, and fly the American flag; calling yourself a true patriot?

There is a scene in the film adaptation of the graphic novel Watchmen which shows a flashback to a past memory from the character Night Owl in which he recalls a time when he and the Comedian arrived at the scene of a protest that became violent when the mob turned on the superheroes. While I can’t recall the exact wording, Night Owl asks the Comedian whatever happened to the American Dream. The Comedian responds by saying something like, “It came true, you’re looking at it.”

The only reason I mention that is because I want to ask you, in all honesty, do you think that the America we live in today is what our Founders had in mind when they risked their lives and fortunes to establish America as an independent country? In other words, is the America we live in their vision of the American Dream?

For awhile it was, then, as the saying goes, it all began to go South; and just so as there is no confusion, by South I don’t mean to Texas or Florida; going South is a euphemism for going to hell. So what happened? Well to put it bluntly, the Constitution happened.

In a recent article I mentioned that it is likely that very few people have ever actually read the Constitution. If that is the case, it is probably true that very few Americans have ever sat down and read our first constitution; The Articles of Confederation. I’d be more than willing to print out a copy if you’re interested in reading it, but that’s beside the point. The point is that, had you read the Articles of Confederation you would have seen that our first system of government had very few powers at all.

The Congress established by the Articles of Confederation could not enact law; there was no president to sign pieces of legislation they had passed, which would then be binding upon the entire country. The process for making laws was quite different under the Articles of Confederation. Instead of Congress passing a bill, then sending it to the President for his signature, (as it is done today), the Congress sent recommendations to the State Legislatures, which then required the unanimous approval of all 13 State Legislatures to become binding.

The power of taxation was similar, with Congress sending its proposed requirements for taxes to the States, then leaving the States to impose the laws, or means, by which those taxes would be collected.

All that lawmaking power has changed in that the States, other than by representation in the Senate, are cut out of the loop when it comes to any say over what becomes law in this country; and even representation has gone by the wayside with the ratification of the 17th Amendment.

Seeing as how most people have probably never read the Articles of Confederation, I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb to say that most have probably never read any of the arguments against the constitution which was presented to the States for their consideration in 1787. These men opposed the Constitution, all for various reasons. Some of them wrote under pseudonyms; such as Cato, Centinel, Brutus, and Federal Farmer, while others, such as Patrick Henry, spoke openly without concealing his identity.

Have you ever heard the old saying, only time will tell? It implies that a period of time must pass before the validity of something can be ascertained. When those who opposed the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists, wrote their essays they were predicting what might happen if the people should choose to adopt the Constitution which had been presented to them for their consideration.

I’d say that 2-1/2 centuries is a sufficient amount of time to make an educated guess as to whether the Anti-Federalists were right to fear the implementation of the government outlined by the Constitution. I could almost go item by item and prove that almost every prediction made by these Anti-Federalists have come true, but to save time I will focus on one passage from the 8th essay written by Robert Yates under the pseudonym of Brutus.

In Brutus #8 Yates writes, “The power to borrow money is general and unlimited, and the clause so often before referred to, authorises the passing any laws proper and necessary to carry this into execution. Under this authority, the Congress may mortgage any or all the revenues of the union, as a fund to loan money upon, and it is probably, in this way, they may borrow of foreign nations, a principal sum, the interest of which will be equal to the annual revenues of the country. — By this means, they may create a national debt, so large, as to exceed the ability of the country ever to sink. I can scarcely contemplate a greater calamity that could befall this country, than to be loaded with a debt exceeding their ability ever to discharge.”

From time to time we hear threats of a possible government shutdown unless the debt ceiling is raised. The debt ceiling is the amount of money our government is allowed to borrow to keep itself operating. Now think about that for a moment. Our Founders realized that, from time to time, money must be borrowed to pay for unexpected emergencies; such as wars. But to fund the day to day operation of government, a massive debt was something that would not have crossed most of their minds.

Yates warned that under the proposed Constitution the ability of our government to borrow endless sums of money was unlimited; a fact which has proven to be true. He then goes on to say that under the Constitution it is probable that the government would borrow so much money that the interest would equal the revenue of the entire country.

What Yates refers to there is the Gross Domestic Product; the total value of goods and services provided by a country in a calendar year. The Gross Domestic Product for the year 2018 was $20.49 trillion. While the interest on our national debt has yet to reach that number, the debt itself has surpassed it; standing at $22.348 trillion.

The interest on our national debt currently stands at $3.138 billion, which boils down to $9,541 for each and every citizen in the United States. That’s how much debt the government has amassed on your behalf; debt which you are on the hook for.

I’m assuming that most of you have never read the 14th Amendment; although some of you may have referred to its equal protection clause from time to time. Are you aware that Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

If you’ll notice it does not say national debt, it says public debt. What that means is that YOU are responsible for paying that debt off, not those you elect. That debt is YOUR responsibility, and if America cannot pay off that debt it is conceivable that those who hold the debt could foreclose and take possession of this country, and everything in it; including you and I and our homes and property.

And what did Yates say about a scenario such as this? Well, he said that no greater calamity could befall a nation than to amass a debt so large that it could never pay it off.

So while you argue and bicker over what laws are being passed by the opposing party, government keeps on keeping on; meaning it keeps passing laws that require it spend more money; money which it has to borrow because it is operating at a $989 BILLION deficit already.

Those numbers are so large that it is almost impossible to wrap our heads around them. So let me see if I can help you out a bit. If you have $1 you don’t have much money, do you? But multiply that by 1,000 and you’ve got a pretty hefty chunk of change. Now multiply that by another 1,000 and you’re starting to think that you’re rich; having amassed a sum of $1 million.

But as far as our national debt goes, you may as well be carrying a handful of pennies around. Now if you multiply that $1 million by 1,000 you’re starting to get into the big numbers; having reached a billion dollars. So how much is a trillion? A trillion is a billion multiplied by 1,000, or $1,000 billion; and our national debt right now is 22 times that size!

But that’s okay, your elected officials are doing the things you put them into office to do; to hell with the fact that our government is bankrupt and has to borrow gigantuan sums of money to pay for it all.

To hell with all these predictions for catastrophe by a bunch of old dead guys, you have a home, a job, food on the table, and things to keep you entertained. To hell with liberty, you have comfort and security.

Ever see a house made out of playing cards? Eventually, if you keep adding to it, it will collapse. Well, that’s America right now, a house of cards built upon the illusion that we are the greatest country in the world with the most freedom in the world. You believe that simply because you get to go to the polls every couple of years and pick from among a bunch of people those who will represent you in government that we are free.

We are not free. We have less freedom now than our Founders did when they decided to rise up against their government in 1776. We are straddled with a debt so massive that even if we shut the entire government down for a year we couldn’t pay it off.

So like I asked earlier, do you think this is the vision the Founders had of the American Dream? And if not, then why the hell do you keep supporting the entity, and the document, which has allowed for this to happen? Why do you keep ignoring and ridiculing those who try to point out the truth to you? You may not care about all these things I say now because you are comfortable in your lives, but one day this house of cards is going to collapse, and when it does you will wish you had listened to me, and those like me.

But as with the Anti-Federalists, only time will tell whether our predictions are accurate…

I’m going to try a little exercise. Instead of just me rambling on and on, I want to provide you with a series of quotes and see if your minds can tie them all together to explain how we went from a nation of people who rose up against their government to become free, to a nation of people who bow before and accept the yoke of tyranny without the slightest of protest.

I’m not going to bother saying who the authors of these quotes are, although some of you may recognize them. I will say that each quote was carefully chosen to provide a specific train of thought, and if your minds are capable of critical thought that train of thought should be readily apparent.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering, this is how MY mind constantly works. So if you see me staring off into space as if I’m lost, I’m probably thinking about something just like the challenge I am now presenting to you.

So let’s see how well you can think for yourselves.

– 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.

– 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.

– It is a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it. This principle is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still “make his mark,” before he is bound by a written contract.

– It is no answer to this view of the case to say that these men are under oath to use their power only within certain limits; for what care they, or what should they care, for oaths or limits, when it is expressly provided, by the Constitution itself, that they shall never be “questioned,” or held to any responsibility whatever, for violating their oaths, or transgressing those limits?

Neither is it any answer to this view of the case to say that the particular individuals holding this power can be changed once in two or six years; for the power of each set of men is absolute during the term for which they hold it; and when they can hold it no longer, they are succeeded only by men whose power will be equally absolute and irresponsible.

Neither is it any answer to this view of the case to say that the men holding this absolute, irresponsible power, must be men chosen by the people (or portions of them) to hold it. A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less slaves because permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute and irresponsible.

The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of property, and the right of property is the right of absolute, irresponsible dominion. The two are identical; the one necessarily implying the other. Neither can exist without the other. If, therefore, Congress have that absolute and irresponsible law-making power, which the Constitution—according to their interpretation of it—gives them, it can only be because they own us as property. If they own us as property, they are our masters, and their will is our law. If they do not own us as property, they are not our masters, and their will, as such, is of no authority over us.

But these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irresponsible dominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claim either to be our masters, or to own us as property. They say they are only our servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives. But this declaration involves an absurdity, a contradiction. No man can be my servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts.

– If the people of this country wish to maintain such a government as the Constitution describes, there is no reason in the world why they should not sign the instrument itself, and thus make known their wishes in an open, authentic manner; in such manner as the common sense and experience of mankind have shown to be reasonable and necessary in such cases; and in such manner as to make themselves (as they ought to do) individually responsible for the acts of the government.

– If any considerable number of the people believe the Constitution to be good, why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and administer them upon, each other; leaving all other persons (who do not interfere with them) in peace? Until they have tried the experiment for themselves, how can they have the face to impose the Constitution upon, or even to recommend it to, others? Plainly the reason for such absurd and inconsistent conduct is that they want the Constitution, not solely for any honest or legitimate use it can be of to themselves or others, but for the dishonest and illegitimate power it gives them over the persons and properties of others.

– For the present I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation!

– A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it. If it cost the people anything to recover its freedom, I should not urge action to this end, although there is nothing a human should hold more dear than the restoration of his own natural right, to change himself from a beast of burden back to a man, so to speak. I do not demand of him so much boldness; let him prefer the doubtful security of living wretchedly to the uncertain hope of living as he pleases.

What then? If in order to have liberty nothing more is needed than to long for it, if only a simple act of the will is necessary, is there any nation in the world that considers a single wish too high a price to pay in order to recover rights which it ought to be ready to redeem at the cost of its blood, rights such that their loss must bring all men of honor to the point of feeling life to be unendurable and death itself a deliverance?

– Yet one element appears to be lacking. I do not know how it happens that nature fails to place within the hearts of men a burning desire for liberty, a blessing so great and so desirable that when it is lost all evils follow thereafter, and even the blessings that remain lose taste and savor because of their corruption by servitude. Liberty is the only joy upon which men do not seem to insist; for surely if they really wanted it, they would receive it. Apparently they refuse this wonderful privilege because it is so easily acquired.

– It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.

– There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection and who always — like Ulysses on land and sea, constantly seeking the smoke of his chimney — cannot prevent themselves from peering about for their natural privileges and from remembering their ancestors and their former ways.
These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them, slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.

– Do not imagine that there is any bird more easily caught by decoy, nor any fish sooner fixed on the hook by wormy bait, than are all these poor fools neatly tricked into servitude by the slightest feather passed, so to speak, before their mouths. Truly it is a marvelous thing that they let themselves be caught so quickly at the slightest tickling of their fancy. Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books.

In all my ramblings I have never asked anyone to just up and accept everything I say; quite the contrary in fact. I have always hoped that people would question the validity of what I write, but that they did not reject outright what I said simply because it ran contrary to what they believed to be the truth. All I hoped for was that people would read what I had written with an open mind, along with the desire to verify whether what I was saying was true, or whether I was lying to them.

In short, all I hope for can be summed up in something Thomas Paine said to the Colonists when he submitted his pamphlet Common Sense to them for their consideration, “IN the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense: and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves that he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day.”

There has been this idea floating around in my head for quite some time now, and from time to time I’ve come close the periphery of it in other articles, yet I’ve never devoted an entire article to it. That’s been because I simply couldn’t figure out a way to address the subject in a manner that would make any sense. Yet I think my subconscious must have worked some overtime last night while I slept; for when I awoke this morning I believe I have come up with a way to express my thoughts in a manner that might make sense to you.

While the Pilgrims were aboard the Mayflower, awaiting the time when they could disembark and set foot upon their new home, they wrote the first legal document as inhabitants of this land that would eventually become the United States of America. Known as the Mayflower Compact, this document declares the reasons for establishing this colony of British Citizens, and declares their loyalty to their King, “We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith…”

It is not so much the intent of these settlers that is of particular interest to me at this time, rather it is their use of the term ‘dread Sovereign’ in reference to the King that I want to discuss. First of all the term dread today implies a certain amount of fear regarding something. But in 1620 the word implied great respect for something, or someone. So when they said ‘dread Sovereign’ they were showing their respect for King James.

However it is the word sovereign that is of importance. I know I have discussed sovereign, or sovereignty numerous times, but I can’t say with any degree of certainty how well you understand the significance of the word. Sovereignty is defined as the supreme or absolute political authority within a body politic, or society.

So when people called their King a dread sovereign it was an acknowledgment that there was no living human being with more authority than the King. As Kings were thought to rule by divine right, the only being with more authority over them was God Himself; and it was believed that the King acted with the authority of God Himself to rule over them. Therefore, to question the authority of the King was akin to questioning the authority of God, and was often punishable by death.

Before I continue I need to be absolutely certain that the concept of sovereignty is 100% clear in your minds. If it is not, I would ask that go back and re-read that passage as many times as is necessary to ensure that it is.

Now it might seem that by opposing the King the Colonists were opposing God Himself, but that’s not necessarily true if one had read the book of 1 Samuel from the Bible. Basically the Israelites asked God for a King, even though God was their King. But they wanted an earthly King to rule over them, and God granted their wish, telling Samuel to appoint Saul, then later David and Solomon; who built the temple. The point is, those of the Christian faith, which most of the Colonists were, already had a King – He just wasn’t an earthly King. God created man, not some earthly king, and it is by God’s grace that man is endowed with certain rights.

Many of those who lived during the period which saw America become an independent country could be said to be children of the Enlightenment. The Age of Enlightenment produced many great political and philosophical thinkers who drastically altered the way man viewed the world around them. As students of these enlightened thinkers it comes as no surprise that they adopted much of what they wrote; especially in regards to their natural rights and the ability of rulers to infringe upon those rights.

As man’s rights were given him by God, it begins to make sense why Thomas Jefferson was so fond of saying, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” These patriots, as devout Christians, felt it was their sacred duty to resist any and all encroachments upon their God-given rights; even when those encroachments came under the authority of someone claiming to rule by divine right.

This is why the Declaration of Independence is so much more than simply a document telling the people of the world that America was asserting its independence from Great Britain. No, the Declaration of Independence is/was the people telling the world their belief regarding the relationship between the government and the governed; the nature of their rights; and what course the people may take when any system of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted.

The decision to declare their independence was not sudden, nor was it rash; it was the culmination of a long series of abuses after repeated petitions to their King for a redress of grievances. The decision to declare their independence came when they realized they had but two options; submit to a ruler with absolute authority over them and their rights, (a tyrant), or to fight to free themselves from the authority of that ruler. They chose the latter option, and eventually obtained their independence.

It is at this critical point in time that something amazing happened. As they had just shrugged off the authority of a ‘dread Sovereign’ the sovereignty itself was transferred to each and every citizen of the 13 newly established States. This was affirmed a few years after they had established a new system of government for themselves, (and I’m kind of skipping ahead here), when the Supreme Court held, “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” (Source: Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793)

An argument could be made that, at this point in American history, each individual was a king unto himself; however his authority only extended to himself; he could not exercise that sovereign authority over the lives and decisions of others.

At this point in time there were approximately 2.5 million inhabitants in America; although that number would explode as more immigrants would flood into the Colonies. As sovereigns they had acted to establish systems of government for each individual State; writing constitutions outlining what powers they were delegating to these legislative bodies, and which powers were reserved to the people.

At the same time, over the course of the Revolution, a confederation had been established which acted as a central unifying body whose authority was severely limited and directed only to the States; not to the people themselves. The legislative authority of the Congress established by the Articles of Confederation was so weak that it could not actually enact any laws of its own accord. For anything to become binding upon all it took a unanimous vote of those who represented the people; the State Legislatures. (See Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation)

So in terms of absolute authority, or sovereignty, the hierarchy was as follows: First came God, who created man; then came man, who established State and local government; then came the central government, which was established by the States under the authority delegated them by the people.

Then along came the convention of 1787 and its proposal for an entirely new system of government. It must understood that those who attended this convention were sent there by the authority of their individual State Legislatures, and that they were given specific instructions regarding what they were to do while in convention; which was to come up with suggested amendments to strengthen the Articles of Confederation. Any action taken beyond those specific instructions would be a violation of their DELEGATED authority, and could be ignored by the States.

Yet James Madison and company had other plans, as were explained to George Washington in a letter written to him by Madison a week or so before the convention. These plans involved abolishing the Confederation and establishing a much stronger, more centralized form of government that would, to quote Madison, “…not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.”

So essentially, what Madison sought to do was shift that hierarchy around a bit, placing the States under the authority of this new system of government; which was to be given its delegated authority by the direct consent of the people. This is crucial, so keep it in mind.

Now if you recall, the Supreme Court would later hold that at the revolution the sovereignty devolved on the people. So in a way it makes sense that any centralized government that would affect them be established by their consent. The question is, was this new form of government established to act directly upon the people, or was it merely a much stronger replacement to the Confederation Congress; whose authority only extended to the States as individual political entities?

Now I could say that I believe that the intent of those who wrote the Constitution was the eventual abolishment of State sovereignty and the creation of a supreme centralized sovereign government, but let’s put that aside for a moment and see what Madison promised when arguing in defense of the Constitution he had a hand in creating. In Federalist 45 Madison declared, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Maybe I’m just obtuse, or dense, but that sure sounds to me like the government outlined by the Constitution would have no direct authority over the lives, liberty and property of the people.

You see there is one point I’ve withheld mentioning until it became relevant; which it has now become. The Preamble to the Constitution says that “We the People of the United States … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Now if you recall I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that the people were independently sovereign; meaning that they held the supreme political authority. Therefore, if a group of men decides to outline a system of government for all of the people, but some of the people do not agree to accept this new form of government, what happens to their sovereignty if this new system of government is accepted by a majority of the people?

Allow me to provide some facts that may cause you to think about that question. As I said, the population at the time the Constitution was written and adopted stood at roughly 2.5 million; which means there were 2.5 million sovereign individuals inhabiting the United States.

Fifty-five men attended the convention which produced the Constitution; and only 39 of them actually signed the finished document. Now I want you to read something Thomas Paine wrote in 1791, taken from his book The Rights of Man, “There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the “end of time,” or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.” (My emphasis)

If the people living in 1787 truly were sovereign and independent, as the Supreme Court would later hold, does it not make sense that any system of government that would have authority over them would have to be consented to by each and every one of them?

Did that happen; did each and every person living in America at the time give their consent to this new form of government? No, what happened is that conventions, or State ratifying assemblies, were held in which a few citizens from each State argued over whether or not to adopt this proposed system of government.

So, instead of a unanimous vote of approval for this new system of government, a few select individuals made that decision for the entire country. What about those who did not attend these ratifying assemblies, yet opposed the adoption of this newly written Constitution; what status did they hold AFTER it was adopted? Or, what happened to their sovereignty when they were forced to accept a system they did not agree to?

Taking that premise even further, do you realize that in some cases the vote for ratification or rejection of the proposed Constitution was pretty much equally divided? Sure, in States such as Delaware, New Jersey and Georgia there was not a single vote in opposition to the Constitution, but in States like Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island the votes were very close. Here are the total votes for each State’s Ratifying Assembly; look at the final tallies to see how close they actually were in the abovementioned States:

State For Against
Delaware 30 – 0
Pennsylvania 46 – 23
New Jersey 38 – 0
Georgia 26 – 0
Connecticut 128 – 40
Massachusetts 187 – 168
Maryland 63 – 11
South Carolina 149 – 73
New Hampshire 57 – 47
Virginia 89 – 79
New York 30 – 27
North Carolina 194 – 77
Rhode Island 34 – 32

So not only were the people as a whole not given any say in whether to adopt or reject this proposed system of government, there were some within the Ratifying Assemblies whose voice meant nothing when it came to whether or not they would have to submit to the authority of a system of government they opposed.

What does that say about their sovereignty?

Now to paraphrase that quote from Paine’s The Rights of Man, he said that no generation of men had the authority to decide for all time how posterity shall be governed. This belief was also implied at in the Declaration of Independence, “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…”

So, once those who had written and physically participated in adopting the Constitution had died, for it to remain binding upon the people each generation should either choose to accept or reject the authority it delegates to our system of government.

In fact, the States of New York, Virginia and Rhode Island made it clear in their ratification statements that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people should it attend to their happiness. As the people created government by ordaining the Constitution, it is fully within their rights to revoke their consent to this system of government and resume their status as being free of its authority.

Now I want you to read something that supports this belief, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much territory as the inhabit.”

Do you know who said that? Abraham Lincoln did, 12 years before he reversed his position as President and chose to inaugurate a bloody war to prevent the Confederate States of America from exercising that right.

What Lincoln did was more than just inaugurate a war, deny State’s rights…he drove a stake through the heart of the concept that the government was subject to the will and consent of the governed. Lincoln, by his denying the Confederacy the right to peacefully secede, (for whatever reasons they might have), was essentially saying to the people that you are our servants and we are your master.

And that is the government we have lived under since 1865; not one of consent, but one in which we are subjugated and which we often obey under duress. For you see, I do not consent to this system of government; not as tyrannical and oppressive as I believe it to be. Yet I have no power to resume my status as a sovereign; free of its power. If I try I’d most likely end up in prison, or dead.

Another thing, and I promise, I’m almost finished, if you recall, Madison said in Federalist 45 that the powers delegated to this federal government were to be few and defined. Like I said, maybe I’m just obtuse, but when someone says that something is defined it means I can go somewhere and read exactly what those powers are.

Yet shortly after the government outlined by the Constitution went into operation, Alexander Hamilton would say, “Implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally [to the Central Government] with expressed ones.” I don’t know about you, but I don’t recall Madison saying anything about implied powers, yet here we have Alexander Hamilton talking about them as part and parcel with the expressly delegated powers found within the Constitution.
So who was telling the truth and who was lying; or was Hamilton simply unveiling the great deception that was perpetrated upon the people who voted to adopt the Constitution?

It was these implied powers that ultimately led to the Civil War. It is these implied powers that allowed for everything from Obamacare to government deciding whether or not to make abortion legal. Implied powers are only limited by the imagination of those who exercise legislative authority and the willingness and resolve of the people to resist the exercise of them.

In any case, it is my firm belief that the Constitution was adopted by deceit; that it was adopted without the consent of each and every person to whom the authority of the government it established would extend; and that its continued existence is not by consent, but by the threat of force and violence; making the government itself tyrannical and despotic; not one based upon the consent of the people or the defense of their liberty.

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

I do not consent to this government, yet I am forced to submit to its authority. If I am a sovereign, if I have certain rights granted me by my Creator, then why must I petition them to exercise those rights; and why am I threatened with force and violence when I resist laws that violate them?

If you cannot see that this government is tyrannical and despotic, regardless of which political party sits in control of it, maybe I’m not the one who is obtuse and dense; maybe you are.