Depending upon what you believe in, either God created man or man evolved out of the primordial sludge produced by the Big Bang. Sometime after that man created government. Man gave government certain powers and then turned around and placed restriction on government’s ability to legislate upon certain rights: (See both the Bill of Rights and the preamble to same.)
The Bill of Rights was supposed to be a wall that kept government away from the rights they protect. The Bill of Rights does not create those rights; it defends and protects rights which existed long before government did.
Before I continue I would like to ask you a simple question. Can I walk up to you and punch you in the face? Well I probably could, but you would be completely justified in defending your face and punching me in response. Okay, now that we’ve clarified that, can I hire someone to walk up to you and punch you in the face? Well if I can’t do that, I cannot elect someone to do it either; for in both cases I would be guilty of attempting to violate your rights.
Now what is government? Is it merely the clown who sits in the Oval Office? Is it Congress? Is it both? A just and lawful government is one which is in perfect harmony with the specifics of the document which created it; anything else is a perversion and borders on oppressive, if not outright tyrannical.
Our Constitution contains 3 Articles which discuss the 3 branches of our government; with each Article laying out the requirements for the positions it creates and the powers given to each branch. The remaining 4 Articles of the Constitution discuss other issues, such as the rights of the States and the process by which the Constitution can be altered, or amended.
When you read through the Constitution you will find that there is no mention of any powers being given to any agency created by those we have delegated the power to exercise on our behalf. There is a legal maxim which applies to both constitutional and administrative law that states, “Delegata potestas non potest delegrai”, meaning a delegated power cannot be further delegated.
It is the purpose of the President, once laws have been lawfully enacted, to ensure that they are carried out effectively and efficiently. The President cannot do this by himself, so he can created Cabinet level positions to carry out those functions. However, for these Cabinet level positions to be lawful they must be in accordance with the SPECIFIC powers given government in the original charter, or constitution, which created that government. Any powers that go beyond that are an assumption, or usurpation of unlawful authority.
If you cannot understand that simple point, there is no use in me going any further.
Yet how many agencies are there within the federal government whose job is to enforce laws and policies that the Constitution makes absolutely no mention of as being among the powers delegated to our government? I could list a few if you don’t mind: The DEA, the FBI, the BATF, the FCC, the CIA, the TSA, the EPA, the National Park Service, and of course my good friends at the NSA. Those are just a few of them; I could fill 5 pages of an article with the directory of the agencies and offices which have been created under the umbrella of Executive authority.
How many of these agencies have armed enforcers whose job is to make sure that we the cattle, ooops I meant people, obey the law? How many of them have the authority to use deadly force against our persons if we decide that the laws they are trying to enforce violate our rights? Oh, but if we respond in kind we are the bad guy.
Throughout the speeches given by Patrick Henry in opposition to the Constitution you will find references to federal sheriffs. At that time there was no real structured law enforcement community in America; not as we have it today. So Mr. Henry could only have been talking about federal agents whose job was to enforce the laws passed by the central government.
Even Thomas Jefferson lists these federal sheriffs as being among the reasons the Colonies sought their independence from England, “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” (Source: Declaration of Independence)
Is it not, therefore, reasonable to assume that both Jefferson and Henry would consider agents of the DEA, BATF, FBI and all those others who can enforce, at gunpoint, the laws our government passes as federal sheriffs?
Yet is not the Constitution also a law; the SUPREME law of the land? I believe Article 6 of that document declares that to be true. I also believe that the Supreme Court held this to be the case, “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of men than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.” (Source: Ex parte Milligan, (1866)
If all political power is derived from the people, and if people are the ones who wrote and ratified the law giving certain representatives certain powers to exercise on our behalf, why is it that we have no agency at our disposal that can arrest, and kill if necessary, those who violate the law we have written which governs the actions of our government?
Now don’t get all huffy and bent out of shape about what I said. After all, John Adams said pretty much the same thing in his Defence of Constitutions, “The right of a nation to kill a tyrant, in cases of necessity, can no more be doubted, than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.” I like that reference to flea; as our government today is nothing more than a bunch of liberty sucking parasites; much like fleas themselves. But Adams did not stop there, he continued by saying, “But killing one tyrant only makes way for worse, unless the people have sense, spirit and honesty enough to establish and support a constitution guarded at all points against the tyranny of the one, the few, and the many.” (My emphasis)
The point I am trying to get at is that government has, at its command, all manner of agencies who are dedicated to enforcing their laws upon us, but we are told we have nothing but the voting booth at our disposal; and that is entirely dependent upon the knowledge level of the voters, their concern for whether their government is adhering to its constitutional limitations, and their love of liberty. Having witnessed the general ignorance of the voting public I am not comfortable with placing my liberty in their hands, as most would willingly give theirs up for the promise of comfort and security.
Just look at how many of our rights our government violates with impunity. Now before I go a single step further I have to emphasize that the Supreme Court is PART of government; a very dangerous part as they are not under elective control – as though elective control has kept tyrants out of the other two branches! The Supreme Court is guilty of as much damage to your liberty and to limited government as are the two branches charged with creating and enforcing the law.
As I stated early on in this, the Bill of Rights was like a fence that protected the rights mentioned within it from ANY governmental intrusion. Yet the Supreme Court has taken upon itself to climb that fence and INTERPRET the intent; meaning they can hand down their decisions which restrict the rights protected by both the Bill of Rights AND the Declaration of Independence.
What do I mean by that? Well does not the Declaration of Independence say that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? Yet by their decision in Roe v Wade they upheld the belief that murder is legal.
I can be criminally prosecuted if I kill someone who has broken into my house and I am unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this person did not pose a danger to my life, or the lives of my family. Simply because I do not want that person in my house does not justify my killing them. But a woman can murder their unborn child simply because she does not want that child growing within her body – and the Supreme Court upheld that belief in their decision on Roe v Wade.
Estimates place the number at over 60 million abortions since the Supreme Court handed down their ruling on Roe v Wade; meaning there have been 60 million murders of innocent lives – all because the Supreme Court INTERPRETED what a life was; saying a woman had a right to her own body. If a woman has the right to decide what she wants in her body, why don’t I have the same right? Why does the federal government continue to criminalize and regulate what I can PUT into MINE? Everything from the recreation use of marijuana to certain holistic medicines have found themselves criminalized or restricted by the federal government.
If a woman can terminate a pregnancy; which is a naturally occurring event after sexual relations, then why is it a crime for someone to PUT naturally occurring substances INTO their bodies? Can you explain that to me? On top of all that, thanks to our buddies at the FDA pharmaceutical laboratories can concoct all manner of chemical products, receive approval from the FDA, and market them for public consumption – yet many, if not most of those chemicals are MORE harmful to the human body than are the naturally occurring alternatives.
That’s just one example of how your government has overstepped its authority, interpreted the Supreme Law of the Land, and restricted your liberty. What about the right to keep and bear arms? Do you not find it a little unsettling that the federal government has criminalized the private ownership of automatic weapons, yet those charged with ENFORCING THE LAW are authorized to carry them?
You have to understand, the Bill of Rights were, as the preamble to it says, declaratory and restrictive clauses imposed upon the powers of the government. If you think of my fence analogy, then the government should not have been able to climb that fence and place qualifications upon what is MEANT by arms; thereby limiting those the people could keep and bear.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to that the people could rise up a well regulated militia to defend themselves against tyranny in their government. Yet we have let tyrants arm themselves with the very weapons they have passed laws denying our right to own the same. I’d say they have shifted the balance of power heavily in their favor if it should ever come to an armed conflict against them; wouldn’t you?
All this is because people do not know WHY we have the 2nd Amendment. They think it is for hunting or personal self defense and that a sidearm or shotgun is sufficient for those purposes – and even some side arms are banned because they too carry more rounds than the government deems necessary, or they too can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger.
I am 100% behind penalizing anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. However, I am 100% opposed to penalizing law abiding people due to the actions of a few. The whole idea of liberty is that each person is to be judged according to their own actions. People today believe that society has the right to penalize everyone for the actions of a few. Don’t believe me; let’s see if I’m wrong.
Freedom of speech; it is protected by the 1st Amendment, is it not? Yet once again the Supreme Court has held that prayer in public schools violates it – not only prayer, but any discussion of the Bible in a classroom. Yet classes across the country ARE teaching our children about Islam, and to be tolerant of their beliefs. Is that not just a little bit hypocritical?
Freedom of speech refers to both the spoken and written word. If we being allowing government, or society for that matter, to determine what is and what is not allowed to be said we have opened Pandora’s Box and will see the right to say or write whatever we want limited by what others say is offensive or uncomfortable. We have already seen that in the tearing down of Civil War monuments dedicated to Confederate heroes – all because one group finds them offensive.
What’s next, words with more than 3 syllables because people are too uneducated to understand or pronounce them? What any attempt to censor speech or expression does is it puts the determination for what is true and what isn’t into the hands of the loudest portion of society. What I mean by that is that those who complain the most about what is being said, written, or displayed determine what is, and what is not allowed – i.e. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!!
I’m sorry, if the truth or ideas that conflict with your beliefs offend you, then crawl under a rock and hide from life. Open discussion, honest debate demands that there be no restrictions upon what people are allowed to say, so long as they remain civil about it. Freedom of speech is ONLY limited in cases of slander or libel; writing or printing falsehoods about another which cause harm to that person or their reputation.
That right there is probably my biggest gripe with the people of this country as it pertains to politics; they speak openly about the supposed criminal and unconstitutional acts of the party they disagree with, but when the other side speaks out against THEIR side, they become outraged. These double standards anger me beyond words, and cause me to wonder how shallow the supporters of these candidates are; all because they refuse to turn their gaze inward and see the crimes they support; simply because they are committed by THEIR side.
Just look at the growth of the surveillance apparatus which monitors and spies upon each and every one of us. The 4th Amendment declares that our privacy is protected and that for any searches and seizures to occur a warrant must be issued; stating probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and describing exactly what items are to be searched for and seized.
Now you tell me, if I live in California, and the NSA is spying upon my private conversations, or the Department of Homeland Security has, under authority of the Patriot Act, searched and seized my medical and financial records, or spied upon my electronic conversations, tell me, who swore that oath that there was ‘PROBABLE CAUSE’ to do these things? Did someone I know travel all the way to D.C. and appear before a FISA Court and say these things?
This surveillance apparatus was around when I joined the Air Force back in 1979, and it has only grown in size and capabilities since. It was greatly expanded after 9/11 and has been growing at a steady clip ever since. Bush may have started this, but Obama allowed it to grow unfettered; even though he campaigned on the promise of ensuring that no one’s rights were being violated. That is one of the reasons Edward Snowden made the decision he did to release that data to the public; because he truly thought Obama would curtail the electronic dragnet that was being cast out over the American people.
And for all you Trump supporters, have you asked yourselves if YOUR GUY is doing anything about curtailing this unconstitutional violation or our rights? I wouldn’t bet on it, especially considering that he said “Take the guns and give them due process later.” That doesn’t sound like Trump cares that much about our rights to me. But he’s your guy, and he’s a damned sight better than Hillary…right? Go ahead, keep believing that!
Before I wrap this up there is one more area which I would like to take a few moments discussing. While I don’t agree with our government having the ability to tax our income – in fact I don’t even believe the 16th Amendment, (giving government the ability to tax our wages), was legally ratified, I am going to go on pretending that it is a lawfully enacted power given our government.
Why does government impose taxes; be they tariffs, excise taxes, or a tax upon your pay? The short answer is to fund the operation of government. What if the things your government is doing is illegal; meaning they are not among the powers originally given government? Then isn’t the confiscation of your pay a form of theft?
That alone would anger me beyond words; that my money was being taken from me to fund an army that could then be used to enslave me. Way back in the 1800’s a guy named Lysander Spooner wrote about this very fact, stating, “If any man’s money can be taken by a so-called government, without his own personal consent, all his other rights are taken with it; for with his money the government can, and will, hire soldiers to stand over him, compel him to submit to its arbitrary will, and kill him if he resists.”
Are you so incapable of thought that you cannot see that this is exactly what has happened?
The taxing power of Congress is one which people take for granted; with paying your taxes being considered a person’s patriotic duty. Yet what is the taxing power for? In 1791 Thomas Jefferson explained that power as follows, “To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, ‘to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.’ For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.”
If I were to ask you to pay taxes so that your government could establish a colony upon the planet Mars you would probably tell me that I was crazy, that the government was not authorized to do that. Then again some would probably support such a hair brained idea! Yet did you know that the government funds NASA? All those moon missions in the late 60’s and early 70’s; all those space shuttle missions, not to mention the Hubble Telescope… all funded by your tax dollars. Hmm, I don’t find any mention of space exploration as being among the powers given Congress; maybe you can find it in YOUR version of the Constitution, but I can’t find it in mine.
Also, how much money do you think the federal government simply gives away to other countries in the form of foreign aid? The projected budget for foreign aid for the year 2017 was $4 trillion. People, America is $21 trillion in debt, and we’re just giving money away to other countries? Besides, I did not vote, or I should say, I didn’t use to vote for representatives who gave money they stole from me to other countries. If the people of America want to help those countries then they can donate to the Red Cross or other aid organizations; but DAMMIT IT IS NOT WITHIN THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT TO TAX THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THEN TURN AROUND GIVE IT TO OTHER COUNTRIES!!!
And since we’re on the subject of giving money away, what about all these taxpayer funded programs which provide subsidies, grants, and entitlements to others? Liberty, and by that I mean rightful liberty, means that each of us has the right to seek success; based upon our own efforts and individual skills. It DOES NOT mean that if someone does not achieve success that the rest of society must be taxed to subsidize them!
Again, if you personally want to perform acts of charity to help those in need; fine, go for it. But for the government to take my tax dollars and give it in the form of subsidies, bailouts, grants, or any other form of tax funded entitlement, is pure theft. Those on the receiving end of that money did not sweat, they did not bleed, they did not wake up with aches and pains from the exertions of having earned that money; so why should they be entitled to one penny of it without my consent?
Again, to quote from Jefferson, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
I can almost hear the Social Justice Warriors now, “That’s cold and heartless Neal.” Let me ask y’all something; how much money have YOU personally contributed towards help for those in need; either in the United States or some other country? Hmmm? Are you aware of the fact that since I got married I have sent over $65,000 to my wife’s family in the Philippines to help support them; in their times of need; to build them homes to live in, and in paying for their education?
Don’t tell me I’m cold hearted if you cannot match that claim!
Your government does so much that is unconstitutional that those you elect may as well have their pictures posted on the FBI’s most wanted list of criminals. Yet you, the obedient and subservient people of America bow down to it and worship it as your god. You fight and bicker amongst yourselves along political party lines; never, and I mean NEVER stopping to ask if those you elect are authorized to do the things they promise to do.
All the while they, and those who pull their strings, sit back and laugh at you. They have, quite masterfully I might add, created an elaborate illusion for which you fall for. Shakespeare once said that all the world’s a stage. Well politics in America is a stage as well.
In any play there are the actors that you see performing the play, but what you don’t see are those who hired the actors, those who wrote the script, and those who manage the theater where the play is performed.
When you go to the polls are you are doing is electing which actor best fits your criterion for whatever office they seek. The Republican and Democratic parties are merely hiring agencies which choose the most palatable actors to perform on their stage, and the bankers and corporate special interests are the ones writing the scripts they follow while on stage.
Listen I’m not saying there is absolutely no difference between the two political parties; there is. What I’m saying is that they use these differences to keep you focused on them rather than focusing your attention upon the fact that EVERYTHING your government does is illegal.
If Obamacare truly was unconstitutional, why did Trump seek to replace it with his own version of government run health care instead of seeking to repeal it altogether? If the NSA’s spying upon us is truly a violation of the 4th Amendment, then why has it not only continued, but expanded under every president?
See what I’m getting at. They keep your attention focused on the small things, while they whittle away at your freedom and create a debt so deep that we will NEVER be able to pay it off.
For crying out loud, there are only 535 duly elected officials in our government. There are well over 300 million of us. If 1/3 of this country, (roughly 100 million people), told the government to go to hell, that they were no longer going to comply with the laws government passes, what could government do about it?
That is the power that we hold; the power that THEY do not want you to know exists. Why do you think your schools don’t teach you the truth about the founding of this country? It is because they are government run; meaning they are indoctrination centers designed to produce obedient worker drones.
Yet people say that I’m the crazy one, the rebel. I say they are crazy because the refuse to accept the truth that is right in front of their faces; that they continue to bow down and lick the boots of those that have enslaved them.
Yes, I have said some pretty extreme things; I’ll admit that. All I ask is that, if you choose to respond, you be willing to provide evidence to back up your position–for you can be damned sure that I have evidence to back up mine!